HomeMy WebLinkAboutCopy of 2008-1112 Comp Plan notes 2008 PC DRAFTX Date Name Page Comment Notes
1 8/18/2008 Karen Carter The document divides the community (providing service nodes, this area for the rich, this area for
the poor)
No change in text, 9/9/08
2 8/19/2008 Steve Pittman Recognize 146th Street as a changing and prominent corridor OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
3 8/19/2008 Marilyn Anderson The possibility of a more neighborhood service nodes is in direct conflict with the values of West
Clay residents (see article in Money mag).
expanded upon in later comments
4 8/19/2008 Andy Crook Need an overall plan for utility placement. We have a 2nd rate substation; the city should take
more control
No change in text, 9/9/08
5 8/26/2008 Chamber Lots of vague terminology and definition issues remain. No change in text, 9/9/08
6 8/26/2008 Chamber Feeling that the document is frequently too specific to particular sites or developments. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
7 9/8/2008 Dee Fox How far along is the PC on developing residential quality/architectural standards? No change in text, 9/9/08
8 9/8/2008 Dee Fox References to Neighborhood Service Nodes should also include the new Neighborhood Support
Centers. (pg 22, obj. 1.2; page 24, obj. 1.1, etc.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
9 9/8/2008 Dee Fox Strictly define permitted uses in Neighborhood Support/Service Nodes No change in text, 9/9/08
10 9/8/2008 Dee Fox Define "usable" open space. New trees in Carmel are routinely planted too close together. No change in text, 9/9/08
11 9/8/2008 Dee Fox Address appropriate locations of Mega-churches that serve as Community Centers. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
12 9/8/2008 Dee Fox Address appropriate use of PUD's, and their amendment process. No change in text, 9/9/08
13 9/15/2008 Leslie Webb I believe that city plans must explore the most energy efficient designs possible in our buildings
(LEED, Energy Star, etc) and means of transportation (mass transit of some sort). We need to
provide an alternative to cars. The era of cheap energy is over and those cities that are best
prepared will have a marked advantage. Minimize urban sprawl. More mixed use. We must
support and encourage alternative energy options such as wind and solar to move away from
fossil based fuels and reduce our carbon footprint. We should protect existing trees and plant as
many more trees as possible to sequester carbon, provide cooling and air/water filtration. Please
explore all green and sustainable city planning practices.
14 10/6/2008 Lee, Margaret &
Doug Dolen
We respectfully ask that the "history chapter" be returned to the Carmel Clay Comprehensive
Building Plan. We believe that it most important to preserving Carmel's architectural heritage.
15 10/6/2008 Jeremy Boarman I am writing as a property owner in Old Town Carmel and as a member of the Carmel Clay
Historical Society. I recently became aware that the "history" chapter was removed from the
Carmel Clay Comprehensive Building Plan. I urge that the missing chapter be reinstated in the
plan to ensure the integrity of the architectural culture of the community be preserved.
16 10/9/2008 Judy Hagan I read in the C/C Historical Society newsletter that the historic landmark section of the comp plan
was being deleted or not included. I totally support the landmark section being retained and
expanded actually, to include the landmark farm house on the south side of 116th Street, a little
east of the MononGreenway. Mike Hollibaugh visited it a few years ago with me when there was
development pressure. It should be a inventoried at a minimum.
GENERAL COMMENTS
PREFACE
Comprehensive Plan Comments - July 24, 2008 DRAFT , OCTOBER 23, 2008 DRAFT
1 10/28/2008
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
17 8/24/2008 Tom Jones 5 Note the purpose of the plan is to improve the health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens.
For the city to attempt to mandate preferred architectural details could infringe on individual
rights.
No change in text, 9/9/08
18 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5 Fulfillment of the mandate - Public Involvement: Absent is the extensive public participation and
surveys on what residents wanted that formed the current 2020 plan.
No change in text, 9/9/08
19 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5 A few public meetings on the revision in 2006 may have met the "letter of the law", but they do
not broadly reach the time-crunched public who have a hard time keeping up with the details and
react to changes.
No change in text, 9/9/08
20 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5 In 2006, the stated reason for the abrupt halt was a flawed process and insufficient public
participation. All agreed that the process was very rushed.
No change in text, 9/9/08
21 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5 2 years later the revision process is moving on quickly from where it left off. Many residents are
unaware that the process has restarted and/or that the City's revisions would drastically change
the 2020 Plan protections they relied on.
No change in text, 9/9/08
22 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5 How is this time different from 2006? On this issue of such importance to the public's future, the
city should again pursue an accurate read on public opinion via a comprehensive survey and/or
district citizen groups actively involved in developing the Plan.
No change in text, 9/9/08
23 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 Comprehensive Plan Update Objectives: Planning and zoning are not supposed to be market-
based.
No change in text, 9/9/08
24 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 Language in the 2020 Plan that is protective of residential communities and "the quality of life that
attracted them", is now conspicuously missing.
No change in text, 9/9/08
25 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 "Freshen" is deceptively inaccurate. The 2020 Plan would be totally changed by the City's new
focus on urbanizing, higher densities, and placing commercial uses in residential areas.
Suburban residents, Carmel's foundation, feel threatened.
No change in text, 9/9/08
26 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 Why don't the bulleted documents include the 116th St. Overlay and US 421 studies? No change in text, 9/9/08
27 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 "Form-based" regulations do not negate the non-visual impacts of inappropriate uses. No change in text, 9/9/08
28 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 If easily amendable at any time, will there be public notice and overview of all changes? How will
the public ever keep up, or be able to count on what the Plan says?
No change in text, 9/9/08
29 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6 Drafting and Public Input - The public had little time to review the full draft prior to the one open
house. How many could not attend? Will all oral/written comments be condensed for public
review, including those from developers?
No change in text, 9/9/08
30 9/9/2008 CWIC2 6 Last Paragraph: The plan "will require effort and support by residents." How will you know you
have the support of residents? Many, many Carmel West residents have pretty clearly
communicated to us and we to you thir strong desires to maintain a density of 1.0 u/a and no
commercial areas beyond the existing ones at Meridian St., Michigan Rd. and the Village of
WestClay. Surveys and several well-attended meetings were held for the existing 2020 Plan.
Why aren't these methods being used again?
No change in text, 9/9/08
10/28/2008 CWIC2 6 All of page 6 is new?
31 8/26/2008 Chamber 7 East: Add Village Park Mall and Cool Creek Commons OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
32 8/26/2008 Chamber 7 East, 3rd Paragraph, last sentence: typo "this" not "his" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
33 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 7 & 8 East Carmel - No mention of Keystone commercial area. No change in text, 9/9/08
34 8/6/2008 Pat Rice 8 Does not explain East-West boundaries No change in text, 9/9/08
2 10/28/2008
35 8/26/2008 Chamber 8 South Central, 4th paragraph: “There are two golf courses; one that is under pressure to be
redeveloped.” Belongs in Comp Plan? Who is applying the pressure and why?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
36 X 8/26/2008 Chamber 8 South Central, 6th Paragraph: 96th Street is a connector SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
37 X 8/6/2008 Pat Rice 8 South Central, 6th Paragraph: 96th Street omitted as east/west connectivity. Compare w/pg 90
describing 96th as "major east/west arterial"
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
38 X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 8 North Central Carmel, a higher education facility already exists in the Life and Learning Center.
Owned by Clay Twp and leased to Ivy Tech and IUPUI.
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
39 9/6/2008 Judy Hagan 8 I'd like to see more explanation about the Community Life and Learning Center b/c the name
does not well define it for purposes of a planning document and b/c Objective 2.6 on pg 23 is in
support of higher education. I think "Clay Township" should be included in the the title. Could
something to the effect of "Clay Township's Community Life and Learning Center, operated by
IUPUI and IvyTech, currently provides higher education opportunites in the former C/C Public
Library building."
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
40 9/9/2008 CWIC2 8 A section in the previous draft on page 8 was omitted, which we believe should be included: "The
West Carmel district…has the least developed road network…[Additionally, it is] unlike East
Carmel, where many neighborhoods were built with connecting streets to adjacent developments
or stubbed streets to undeveloped areas." Traffic does not have, and cannot have nearly as
many options in at least the southern part. This important defining characteristic should be listed
and considered for planning purposes.
No change in text, 10/28/08
41 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 8 South Central Carmel-No mention of west boundary employment area(US 31) OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
42 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 9 (West Carmel): End of 2nd paragraph, Change "residential" amenities to "recreational". OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
43 9/9/2008 CWIC2 9 2nd Paragraph is problematic. It cites "pride of place and rural living" as "historical," while stating
that valueas have now turned to "amenities." For the vast majority of Carmel West residents,
there has been no such change. Carmel West have always fought hard to keep density low and
it's hugely important to a great many residents today, not just "historically." Yet that's not stated
anywhere. It must be clearly stated or it's not "our" Comp Plan and it will not have the support of
the Carmel West residents.
44 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 9 West Carmel Characteristics: Largest district with fewest parks. One city and one county park, in
the center, were largely donated in response to overdevelopment concerns. Especially w/ 146th
St developing, the city needs to promptly obtain park land on the north end, while land is still
available.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
45 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 9 Last Paragraph: Add "community and" regional destination. The Village of WestClay should not
be mapped as a Community Vitality Node. It is a neighborhood-serving.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
46 8/19/2008 Dan Dutcher Figures should reflect the entire township and show growth trends OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
47 9/8/2008 Dan Dutcher I suggest a reference to the likely timetable for "build out." I think that would dovetail well with the
discussion regarding the emergence of Carmel as an Edge City, beyond a traditional residential
suburb.
48 8/26/2008 Chamber 12 4th Paragraph: do you mean Woodlands instead of Woodlots? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
"historically" deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
PART 1: COMMUNITY PROFILE
3 10/28/2008
49 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 12 Objective Profile: Woodlots-A goal should be to strengthen cutting limitation and replacement
requirements for mature trees.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
50 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 12 Population Growth-Does chart include entire Township? Carmel is built on families w/ children,
who came for nonurban lifestyles and schools. Why do these revisions focus on urbanizing and
on developing for everyone but them?
no change in text, 9/9/08
51 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 13 All charts are 8 yrs out of date. no change in text, 9/9/08
52 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 13 Education-All suburbs and Hamilton County have higher graduation rates than Indianapolis.
Carmel now strives to morph into a city, which its suburban residents fled. Increased population
means facing the need for a second high school.
no change in text, 9/9/08
53 8/26/2008 Chamber 14 Parkland: Central Park is now built, paragraph outdated OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
54 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14 Omit Mohawk Hill Golf Club no change in text, 9/9/08
55 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14 Development Trends: The upward trend in Town Homes/Multi-Family units is due to City officials
actively encouraging them.
no change in text, 9/9/08
56 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14 The current solution to crowded schools seems to be to increase density, but build new
developments that aim to exclude children!
no change in text, 9/9/08
57 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14 Golf courses-Most are under pressure to be developed, or are private. Sadly, few public courses
will exist.
no change in text, 9/9/08
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
58 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 16 This is where the whole focus is changed from the 2020 Plan, so as to increase density and add
commercial development to the suburbs. If "the public can base their expectations" on this Part,
then the content needs to be based on the public's desire to protect existing chosen lifestyles and
neighborhoods.
no change in text, 9/9/08
59 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.2: "desired features" definition? no change in text, 9/9/08
60 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17 Obj. 1.3, 1.4, 1.5: Objectives of Carmel government and its suburban residents are not the same.
Inserting "mixed use" into suburban areas makes a harsh contrast inevitable, and effective
transition difficult. Locate such nodes now, so that the decision is not left to developers, and so
that homebuyers know what to expect. Brace for many fights over what constitutes "unsuitable
commercial development." Most residential areas formed as havens from the effects of
commercial development, and consider all of it to be unsuitable.
no change in text, 9/9/08
61 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.3: Very specific language. Is the Comp Plan an ordinance? In other words, can it be
perceived as the law in Carmel?
no change in text, 9/9/08
62 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Obj. 1.4, second sentence: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. The previous
version said “Avoid unplanned or harsh contrasts in height, building orientation, character, land
use, and density.” Now it is “Discourage.” Not an improvement and it should be changed back.
63 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Obj. 1.5: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. Are we really saying that essentially
we always want to see mixed use in commercial areas? Is there no concern that there may be a
limit to demand for this or that the desire for this be more specific to areas that contain, or will
contain, typical urban shopping and entertainment venues—as in not in a suburban areas that
want to be sururban.
PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE
4 10/28/2008
64 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.5: What is “unsuitable commercial development?” no change in text, 9/9/08
65 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17 Obj. 1.6: How does one determine which neighborhoods are not subject to redevelopment?
Those not on the list will see home values plummet.
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
66 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17 Obj. 2.2, 2.3: The few affordable housing options are being "redeveloped" to become expensive.
Many "transplants" from other areas appreciate the chance to get more spacious homes/yards
for less money in Indiana.
no change in text, 9/9/08
67 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.2: Can we say we want more businesses and not just more corporations? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
68 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.3: “The City needs to commission a study on housing choices.” Belongs in Comp Plan? no change in text, 9/9/08
69 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Obj. 2.3: The study on housing choices should have already been done and it should help drive
the Comp Plan, not the other way around. The population chart on page 12 clearly shows this is
an area of families—the age groups that are the largest include 35-54 year-olds and their
children. Please ensure the new Comp Plan does not overallocate residences for other age
groups, that it takes care that their location suits the needs of the people who would chose them,
and it reflects the studies that show that the large age group for families wants surburban living,
not urban living. Give us our peace and quiet.
no change in text, 9/9/08
70 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.4: is an opinion, not an objective OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
5 10/28/2008
71 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Policy 1 Into: The last sentence before Objective 1.1 states, “This model [form-based] is more
permissive of mixed used nodes and requires greater sensitivity to transitions between differing
land classifications.” How will this be truly accomplished? What guarantees do residents have
that it won’t be at the whim of changing faces at DOCS, the Plan Commission, and City Council
and however they want to interpret “permissive” and “sensitivity” at that time? How do we trust
this, when Carmel West residents turned out in droves for the 2020 Plan to insist on a density of
1 u/a, but we’ve had to keep fighting over this? Now you’re asking us to “trust” on this issue
when we’re once again fighting to keep the character of the area the same as it was when we
decided to invest in our homes in the area. This isn’t just a wording problem—it’s a problem with
the concepts contained in the Plan. If this is only a problem with Carmel West, then apply the
concepts east of Meridian and give plans for Carmel West enough structure and limitations that
this issue goes away. Here are examples that feed fears about future “insensitivity” being
imposed:
1. Objective 1.4, 2nd sentence: The previous version said “Avoid unplanned or harsh contrasts
in height, building orientation, character, land use, and density.” Now it is “Discourage.” Not an
improvement and it should be changed back.
2. Objective 1.5: Discussed (but contributes to the fear).
3. Objective 3.2. Discussed & modified (but contributes to fear--implies this should be utilized
everywhere at all times, even in low-density residential areas.)
4. Objective 3.4 has the same problem as Objective 3.2
5. Objective 4.1. Discussed. Change terminology for “traditional neighborhood design
principals.”
6. We understand the benefits stated in Objective 4.5, but please understand the benefits of not
having commercial uses of any kind nearby. Carmel West residents are smart and know what
benefits are most important to them and chose the area specifically because of the benefits of not
including retail amongst neighborhoods. This is the most problematic Objective in the document.
72 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17 Policy 1 Intro: Land use based planning protected homeowners from unwanted commercial and
mult-story bldgs next to single-family homes.
no change in text, 9/9/08
73 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Policy 1, 1st sentence: “Managing community form is the art and science of influencing
development in a manner that results in a superior quality built and natural environment in which
people reside, work and recreate; and creates the opportunity for businesses to thrive.” Say
what?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
74 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17 Policy 2 Intro: Carmel has always been a suburb w/ a "desirable quality of life." Other realities,
though, are its image is snobbish, it is unaffordable to many, it lacks "non-white-collar" jobs, and it
is unlikely to be able to support public transportation if Indianapolis can't.
no change in text, 9/9/08
75 8/26/2008 Dan Dutcher 17 Policy 2: This is great. Edge cities are distinct from traditional bedroom suburbs. I would only
suggest a bit of elaboration that edge cities have been a modern trend and that their evolution
and distinct nature from traditional suburbs is likely to be further enhanced by economic trends
like higher fuel prices, etc.
Leading Edge City, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
6 10/28/2008
76 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 We’d suggest an Objective be added stating the importance of maintaining areas for traditional
suburban residences.
77 8/18/2008 Karen Carter 18 Obj. 3.1: Instead of "branding," suggest the word "promoting". no change in text, 9/9/08
78 8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.10: Instead of “Encourage” can we provide incentives for buildings to be constructed of
high-quality materials?
no change in text, 9/9/08
79 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 Obj. 3.10: Transition problems, especially along residential Spring Mill Road. no change in text, 9/9/08
80 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 Obj. 3.2: Add to the end of first sent. "in urban core and commercial areas". Suburban residents
have chosen not to live near urban 24/7 "vitality."
add "where appropriate", OCTOBER 23
DRAFT
81 9/9/2008 CWIC2 18 Obj. 3.2: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed, even though discussed and modified to
add the words “where appropriate” at the end of the first sentence.
82 8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.3: Encourage owners – add “through zoning amendments” – to retrofit. . .” OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
83 9/9/2008 CWIC2 18 Obj. 3.4: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. Has the same problem as Objective
3.2
84 8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.5: “Create incentives for development – add standards.” no change in text, 9/9/08
85 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 obj. 3.5: Exclude increased density from the list of incentives. no change in text, 9/9/08
86 8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.5: Lessening is misspelled as “lessoning.” to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08
87 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 Obj. 4.1: ALARMING. This type of development does not belong everywhere! Do not include
suburban areas in statements of urban objectives, especially vague and general statements.
no change in text, 9/9/08
88 9/9/2008 CWIC2 18 Obj. 4.1: states a desire for “traditional neighborhood design principals, in all neighborhoods
including…..estate, suburban or urban.” So we’re stating that more Villages of WestClay (VWC)
are the goal anywhere in Carmel? Approval of the VWC was given with the promise, often
restated, that the VWC would be the exception in Clay West. This objective violates that promise
and CWIC2 can guarantee a huge uprising from Carmel West residents over this.
discussed 9/9/08. Re-word, clarify
tradiitional neighborhood design
principals
89 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18 Policy 4 Intro: Subdivisions are neighborhoods. What "outside destabilizing forces"? delete, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
90 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.3: Establishing neighborhood identity based on physical boundaries has basically been
done by acknowledging 4 unique districts.
no change in text, 9/9/08
91 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.4: This new. Explain. no change in text, 9/9/08
92 9/9/2008 CWIC2 19 Obj. 4.5: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. We understand the benefits stated in
Objective 4.5, but please understand the benefits of not having commercial uses of any kind
nearby. Carmel West residents are smart and know what benefits are most important to them
and chose the area specifically because of the benefits of not including retail amongst
neighborhoods. This is the most problematic Objective in the document.
93 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.5: To the end of the first sent., add "in context to appropriate locations". Agreement from
surrounding homeowners should be required. Suburbanites purposely fled the traffic, trucks,
noise, and light of commercial development.
no change in text, 9/9/08
94 8/26/2008 Chamber 19 Obj. 4.6: “Disallow incompatible site and building designs.” Examples? no change in text, 9/9/08
95 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 4.6: Estate and large lot owners will move away from commercial development. Zoning
exceptions will be sought for the nearby "compromised" properties. Effective transition is
questionably possible, one mile apart is too close. In West Carmel's one-mile road grid, that
would be one on every corner.
no change in text, 9/9/08
96 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 5.1: The city's "vision" would alter/negate the chosen lifestyle of its residents, based on
unproven trends.
no change in text, 9/9/08
7 10/28/2008
97 9/9/2008 CWIC2 19 Obj. 5.2: Does this mean Carmel would make changes to Land Classifications without going
through a Comp Plan revision? Please no, and please tell us it would not just be a 10-day notice
with a Plan Commission hearing, meeting, approval, and repeat in City Council. That is not
nearly enough warning and time for input for making such a drastic change.
addressed 9/9/08, no change in text
98 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Obj. 5.2: How will the public be informed and have input? Limit how often it can be revised.
Frequently and readily revisable means no rest, control, or security for the public.
no change in text, 9/9/08
99 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19 Policy 5 Intro: "Fear of change" has been added! It's the routine label for residents who disagree
with any of the city's plans. Certain changes are justifiably opposed as plain bad ideas that would
adversely affect many people. It is the city's push to imitate Traditional Neighborhoods that is
"based on the models that were successful 50 or more years ago/" Even the real ones that
remain are dying, b/c circumstances of both residential life and business are very different now.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
100 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Obj. 5.7: Again, what reward? Not increased density! The City seems to equate "sprawl" w/ its
foundation of single-family homes on lots that offer some privacy.
no change in text, 9/9/08
101 8/29/2008 Tom Jones 20 Obj. 5.7: This could include moving toward more naturalistic lawn care. Golf courses and private
lawns could allow grass to go dormant instead of using valuable water resources.
no change in text, 9/9/08
102 8/26/2008 Chamber 20 Obj. 6.1: Define monotonous. What are Carmel’s “character goals?” Wouldn’t defining character
goals be something a comp plan would address?
no change in text, 9/9/08
103 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Obj. 6.2: Exactly who is "the community" (Carmel government?), and why should they be able to
dictate "character goals" for the different districts? We are not Disneyland. Redevelopment (Old
Town) and new development should not be treated the same way.
addressed 9/9/08, no change in text
104 9/8/2008 CWIC2 20 Obj. 6.2: states “the community will identify appropriate character goals, subareas, and
neighborhoods for…West Carmel.” West Carmel already knows what those are and we keep
stating them. Please do as this objective states: respect our values and help uphold them.
addressed 9/9/08, no change in text
105 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Obj. 6.3: "Significant" landscaping has been removed! Even the most attractive landscaping is
not effective if there is not enough of it.
106 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Obj. 6.4: Add "preservation". Carmel does not do enough to protect mature trees from
development, and their replacements do not compare in size or number.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
107 9/12/2008 Julie & Jerry Williams 20 Obj. 6.4: We also would like to see them beef up the section about retaining existing trees
(especially mature trees) and natural areas which happen to exist in an area slated for
development. It takes no special skills or vision to mow down everything on a parcel of land and
build all anew, including landscaping. However, it does take leadership to insist that, at least
when there is taxpayer money involved, we don’t use tax dollars to pay for placing NEW trees
onto a cleared lot if there are already mature trees on the property that could be saved.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
108 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Obj. 6.7: West Carmel has request buried utility lines, and it could be done in conjunction w/ new
road work. I've been told that it is expensive and that the utility company is reluctant b/c of the
extra labor. Is that the end of the discussion?
no change in text, 9/9/08
109 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20 Policy 6 Intro: West Carmel's character is already establised as uniquely very low density
residential, mostly without urban intrusion. This Plan threatens to change, rahter than protect it.
no change in text, 9/9/08
8 10/28/2008
110 9/8/2008 CWIC2 20 Policy 6: “Community character” is cited in various places and has its own section under Part 1,
Policy 6, page 20. When asked where we live, most residents respond with “West Carmel,”
giving their particular subdivision only when nailing location down further. As written, this
document is a threat to the highly valued sense of “community character” that already exists in
Carmel West.
no change in text, 9/9/08
111 10/25/2008 John B. Tintera There are 3 references in C3 to LEED as follows; page 20, Objective 7.5, page 21, Objective 7.8 and page 21,
Objective 7.14. Please add Energy Star and Green Globes for alternative certification. Shown below is a link to a
recent article in Scientific American covering some of the common objections to LEED Certification.
add "such as". OCT 31 SUPPLEMENT
112 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=leed-compliance-not-required&print=true
113 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.3: Define "small scale" and "large scale". Retroactive? no change in text, 9/9/08
114 8/26/2008 Chamber 21 Obj. 7.3: We need a definition for “large-scale employment nodes.” While the encouragement of
walking and bicycling is laudable, requiring businesses to provide facilities for walkers and bikers
is expensive, both to build and to maintain.
no change in text, 9/9/08
115 9/12/2008 Julie & Jerry Williams 21 Obj. 7.5: The City should require (not strongly recommend) LEED or equivalent buildings for all
new taxpayer paid construction.
other public facilities, OCT 31
SUPPLEMENT
116 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.9: Carmel needs to address the mercury levels in CFL's & how to dispose of them safely
before "jumping on that bandwagon"
no change in text, 9/9/08
117 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.9: Encourage the city and residents to minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides, and lawn
chemicals.
no change in text, 9/9/08
118 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.10: Be mindful that windmills, large solar panels, electrical utilities, water towers, and cell
towers are eyesores in residential aeras. Take great care in locating and screening.
no change in text, 10/28/08
119 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 1.2: "Allow" has been changed to "support and encourage"! (mention new "support centers",
too.) Locate nodes NOW, and get public approval. To the "strictly regulated" list, add hours of
operation, buffering, uses, and signage. The impact of these nodes is more than visual.
120 8/26/2008 Chamber 22 Obj. 2.2: What is “world class?” Why would specific developments (i.e. Village of West Clay and
Earlham College property) be singled out?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
121 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 3.2: Put a limit on density that transitions to residential. Impacts of increased density are not
just visual.
now Objective 6.2
122 8/26/2008 Tom Jones 22 Obj. 3.3: The idea has merit but is it wise to make specific recommendations about privately
owned property?
deleted OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
123 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 3.3: This intent to expand and intensify areas "sold" to the public as small "neighborhood-
serving", is one major reason why so many residents do not want them.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
124 8/26/2008 Chamber 22 Obj. 3.3: Why would the city’s comp plan drill down to suggesting that a particular property
owner, in this case Northview Christian Life Church, be encouraged to sell a portion of its land?
This struck us as completely inappropriate for this document.
deleted OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
125 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 4.2: Discourage "residential opportunities" near the mine. The problems were predictable,
and houses already there should not have been approved.
now Objective 7.2
126 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 4.5: Add "locate and design it so as to minimally impact surrounding residences."
127 8/26/2008 Chamber 23 Obj. 1.2: Is specifying the height of buildings the job of the comp plan? deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
128 8/26/2008 Chamber 23 Obj. 2.4: We do not understand why musical performances would be a topic for comprehensive
plan.
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
129 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 1.2: Add "buffering, use of transitional design", as was done for North Central Carmel. OCTOBER 31 SUPPLEMENT
9 10/28/2008
130 8/26/2008 Chamber 24 Obj. 1.5: “Areas adjacent to single family residential should not exceed five unites per acre. . .”
The job of the comp plan or zoning ordinance?
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
131 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 1.5: Since the "intense fringe areas" are limited to 5.0 units/acre adjacent to single-family
residential, then the Suburban Residential density (up to 4.9 u/a) applied to the entire South
Central residential area is too high.
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
132 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 2.1, 2.2: Threats of redevelopment are causing residents to panic and leave. Busy roads are
not a buffer.
no change in text, 10/28/08
133 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 2.3: Should this say "west" rather than "east" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
134 9/15/2008 Karen Gould 25 General Comments: I am also opposed to any increase in amenities, such as gas stations and
shops. We are quite content to drive to what we need, not to have it in our immediate
neighborhood. When we became part of Carmel, we thought Carmel would look out
for the needs of the people...not tell us what our needs are (more retail, etc.)
This is a residential area and we do no want an urbanized area shoved on us. Let us be a part of
the decision as to what becomes of our area. There are plenty of shops on Michigan Road or on
Meridian at which we all can do our business. We don't want it in our neighborhood.
135 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 General Comments: Suburban (and especially West Carmel) residents have chosen not to live
close to high density and commercial development. Estate owners will move away from it. West
Carmel is already conveniently and adequately served. Any location issues need to be settled
now. Otherwise, there will be a fight over every proposal. Also, "PUDs" still need to be addressed
in West Carmel.
136 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 1.1, 1.2: Increase open space requrement soon, before buildout. Replace "Allow" wilth
"Consider". Distinguish between Neighborhood Support Centers and Neighborhood Service
Nodes. The size and density of the latter are especially not appropriate in West Carmel. To the
"strictly regulated", ADD hours of operation, uses, signage, and buffering.
137 9/8/2008 CWIC2 25 Obj. 1.1: We’ve heard the argument that if you can’t really see the homes as you drive down the
road, it doesn’t really matter how many homes are in the subdivision. That’s not an argument we
buy and it is not what we want. The only way this works is if a significantly large open space is
mandatory, not “considered.”
138 9/8/2008 CWIC2 25 Obj. 1.2: Neighborhood service nodes are not compatible with the reason people chose to invest
in their homes in a community of large lot homes. It makes Objectives 2.1 and 3.1 unachievable.
no change in text, 9/9/08
139 8/26/2008 Chamber 25 Obj. 2.1: “. . .other housing styles that cater to high income families.” Do we really want to say
this? West Carmel is for rich people? Doesn’t use of the term “estate character” convey this in a
less-offensive way?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
140 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 2.1: This "sub-area" is the current low density zoning of all of West Carmel. no change in text, 10/28/08
141 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 2.2: Custom homes require higher-income buyers, who generally do not desire to be near
higher densities and/or commercial development. "Accessory dwellings" is vague. Are they
prohibited now? Can they be rentals?
142 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.1: The last sent. Is STILL a problem. "Residential intensity" has unwanted effects in West
Carmel, whether it is visible or not.
now Objective 6.1
143 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.2 Insert "including" before the word "along".
144 8/26/2008 Chamber 25 Obj. 3.3: We understood there a Michigan Road overlay already exists. We also are having
trouble matching the concept of a four-lane highway with “village character.”
no change in text, 9/9/08
10 10/28/2008
145 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.4: Are "institutional" uses considered to be residential? Why no mention of the 116th St.
Overlay already in place? There is much concern about the fate of the southwest corner of 116th
St. and Towne Rd.
no change in text, 9/9/08
146 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 4.2: Leave out entirely, or replace "Establish" with "Consider". They are not needed or
wanted here, are not compatible with preserving rural character, and would not significantly
prevent driving. They would struggle to survive and would add large truck traffice, noise, light,
and trash problems.
now objective 7.2
147 9/8/2008 CWIC2 25 Obj. 4.2: Neighborhood service nodes are not compatible with the reason people chose to invest
in their homes in a community of large lot homes. It makes Objectives 2.1 and 3.1 unachievable.
now objective 7.2
148 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 5.1: Emphasize keeping road changes in character with the area. now objective 1.5
149 8/26/2008 Chamber 25 Obj. 5.1: Who pays for the required pedestrian and bicycle paths? no change in text, 9/9/08
150 9/11/2008 Tom Jones 25 Obj. 5.3: The residents of the Little Eagle Creek area should be made aware that a greenway is
an objective of development.
no change in text, 9/9/08
151 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 5.4: Replace "WestClay Secondary Core" with "The Village of WestClay". As per page 42,
the Village of WestClay commercial core is a "Secondary Core" in form only.
now objective 1.8
152 8/26/2008 Dan Dutcher 25 West Central: I think the Village of West Clay needs to be more directly addressed throughout the
various policies reflected in The West Clay Section
no change in text, 9/9/08
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
153 9/19/2008 CWIC2 Carmel West has a strong sense of community and character, which is a draw for many people.
Most people invested in their homes in Carmel West specifically because the zoning promised
the area would be low-density residential and that commercial uses would not intrude. They
opted out of “urban” life. Many couldn’t afford to buy and build on acreage, but want space
between our neighbors, no commercial intrusions, plenty of greenspace and no “walls” of close-
together houses when we’re out and about.
no change in text, 9/23/08
154 9/20/2008 Tom Jones Where does "agricultural" fit in the Land Classification Plan? The current S-1 zoning ordinance
allows for a tree nursery on ten acres of land and I believe owning a horse requires five acres.
Acknowledging that the actual ordinance governs the use - should there be any mention in this
"broadbrush" document?
no change in text, 9/23/08
155 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 28 Introduction: Appropriate Adjacent - Conditional Fit is based on only "orientation, transitions, and
architecture"? What about use, height, and density?
no change in text, 9/23/08
156 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 28 A statement is needed that the listed "Appropriate Adjacent Classifications" are not meant to
encourage these uses other than where identified on the Land Classification Map, and that their
inclusion does not suggest automatic approval. Otherwise, they will invite disputes.
no change in text, 9/23/08
157 9/19/2008 CWIC2 29 Development Features: Add, “including passive enjoyment of nature” to the last one, “Promote
recreation.”
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
158 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 29 Land Uses: add "pocket parks" to the list OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
159 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 29 Examples: Delete Village of West Clay open space network, this is zoned PUD not a park zone pocket parks, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
160 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Can title be changed to from "Estate" to "Conservation" or "Rural" Residential? no change in text, 9/23/08
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
11 10/28/2008
161 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Purpose: end the sentence after "…who desire a large residential lot" no change in text, 9/23/08
162 9/19/2008 CWIC2 30 Appropriate Adjacent Classifications: How compatible is Suburban Residential, 4.9 u/a with a 1.0
u/a? Would you want a 5 times as dense neighborhood behind your house? In Carmel West,
people chose a low-density residential area, not just a low-density subdivision. Remove this.
Conditional, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
163 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 30 Best Fit - Move "Suburban Residential" to Conditional. Conditional, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
164 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Best Fit: Remove Low Intensity Suburban and Suburban. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
165 9/19/2008 CWIC2 30 Conditional Fit: “Attached Residential” has a density of 7.0 u/a and is too much a difference from
1.0 u/a. Remove this.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
166 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Conditional Fit: add low intensity suburban residential (only at perimeter). OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
167 8/26/2008 Chamber 30 Development Features: “Minimum of 10% open space in subdivisions. . .” Comp plan or zoning
ordinance? Should there be mention of trails or bicycle/pedestrian connectivity here?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
168 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Development Features: delete second sentence (perception of open space), add "At least 50% of
the open space must be on dry land as a designed landscape."
no change in text, 9/23/08
169 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Development Features, 3rd bullet: delete "on estate sized lots" at the end of the sentence. no change in text, 9/23/08
170 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30 Development Features: add a bullet point, "Garages must be side-loaded or front-loeaded if set
behind the main building by at least 50 feet."
no change in text, 9/23/08
171 9/19/2008 CWIC2 31 Purpose: Amend to read, “Establish and protect housing opportunities for people who desire low
density or subdivision living.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
172 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 31 Geographic Location - Why are no such areas shown for South Central Carmel on the Land
Classification map?
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
173 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Geographic location: Delete South Central since none is shown on the map deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
174 9/3/2008 Andy Crook 31 Intensity/Density: Supports higher than 1.0 but thinks 1.5 should be upper limit in reflection of
what has been approved and developed. "Fill in" developments need higher densities to make
development of smaller tracts work financially.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
175 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 31 Density - This is mainly Northwest Clay on the Map. The upper limit of 1.9 u/a is too high, and
does not reflect existing densities. It would raise the density to be in line with the Village of
WestClay exception, (where a .1 density increase added 70 extra houses). It would double the
current zoning, and would not reflect recent denial of 2 rezone proposals at that density.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
176 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Intensity/Density: limit to 1.0. should not change from current densities without a public survey OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
177 9/19/2008 CWIC2 31 Appropriate Adjacent Classifications: Delete Suburban Residential, Neighborhood Service Node,
and Community Vitality Node. A change in density next door from a 1.2 to 4.9 is way too extreme
for people in West Carmel who want to live in a low-density residential area. And again, West
Carmel residents chose to live away from typical urban features provided by even a
“Neighborhood Service Node,” let alone a “Community Vitality Node” that could have 80,000 sq.
ft. of retail!
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
178 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Best Fit: delete Suburban Residential no change in text, 9/23/08
179 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Conditional Fit: add Suburban Residential (at edges), delete attached residential, neighborhood
service should be changed to support, delete community vitality node since there are none
present.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
180 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Structure Orientation on Site: delete courtyard-loading garages. no change in text, 9/23/08
181 9/19/2008 CWIC2 31 Development Features: Define “designed open space.” Is it usable? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
182 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 31 Open Space - "50% should be designed" was added. Why? Is it usable? Define both. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
12 10/28/2008
183 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31 Development Features: add "and on dry land as a designed landscape." no change in text, 9/23/08
184 9/19/2008 CWIC2 32 Suburban Res: In 2006, Plan Commissioners voted 6 to 1 to divide this classification further.
That should be reflected in this draft.
no change in text, 9/23/08
185 9/19/2008 CWIC2 32 Purpose: Amend to read, “To establish housing opportunities for people who desire to have less
yard & to enjoy closer proximity to their neighbors.
no change in text, 9/23/08
186 9/19/2008 CWIC2 32 Geographic location: Strike “West.” This doesn’t exist outside of the Village of WestClay and
Stanford Park, which were approved as “exceptions. They certainly are a very small piece of the
area. It is not typical.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
187 9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison 32 Geographic Location: Why is North Central Carmel not listed? Is it because the city wants to buy
up this land and turn it in to something else?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
188 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32 Geographic Location - What is the basis for applying up to 4.9 u/a to all of South Central and East
Carmel.
no change in text, 9/23/08
189 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Land Uses: delete 2nd bullet no change in text, 9/23/08
190 8/19/2008 Andy Crook 32 Intensity/Density: 4.9 du/a is too high. no change in text, 9/23/08
191 9/19/2008 CWIC2 32 Intensity/Density: Add the phrase “where there is good connectivity” to the end. Reduce the top
number to at least 3.9. Urban residential starts at 4.0, so nothing is served by the overlap. At
3.9, equal sized lots would be approximately 1/5 of an acre. That is “urban”, not “suburban,”
particularly in Carmel West.
no change in text, 9/23/08
192 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32 Density - Range is too broad. In 2006, Plan Commissioners voted 6-1 to further divide this
classification.
no change in text, 9/23/08
193 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Intensity/Density: should be between 1.0 and 2.9. R-1 is now 2.9 max and shouldn't change
unless survey indicates otherwise.
no change in text, 9/23/08
194 9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison 32 Intensity/Density: Where are the areas that will be 2-4.9 dwellings per acre located? The words
“will be” is of concern to me. Are you planning on destroying current neighborhoods to put in new
ones? If so how will you go about doing that?
"will be" deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
195 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Best Fit: delete attached residential and neighborhood service node OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
196 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32 Best Fit - Add "Neighborhood Support Center". Move "Attached Residential (7 u/a or greater)",
and "Neighborhood Service Node (80,000 sq. ft., up to 6 u/a)" to Conditional Fit.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
197 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32 Conditional Fit - All of these would be very conditional, (allowing 6-14 u/a), especially next to the
lower end of this range (2-4.9 u/a). Employment Nodes allow up to 4 stories.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
198 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Conditional Fit: add neighborhood support node, delete community vitality OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
199 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Structure Features, 3rd bullet: add "on lots less than 80' wide." no change in text, 9/23/08
200 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape." no change in text, 9/23/08
201 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32 1st Photo: Isn't Enclave 7 units per acre? no change in text, 9/23/08
202 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Land Uses: delete 2nd bullet, since townhouses are listed under attached residential no change in text, 9/23/08
203 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Intensity/Density: should be between 2.9 and 5 units per acre. no change in text, 9/23/08
204 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33 Examples - To Village of WestClay, add "in form only". Its 2.1 u/a is nowhere near the "Urban"
density of 4-8 u/a, and therefore should not be classified "Urban" on the Map.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
205 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33 Best Fit - No mention of "Neighborhood Support Center". "Core Support", with no density limits,
should be moved to Conditional.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
206 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Best Fit: delete neighborhood service node and core support OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
207 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33 Conditional Fit - "Urban" 8 u/a could go next to "Suburban Res." 2 u/a?? no change in text, 9/23/08
13 10/28/2008
208 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Conditional Fit: add neighborhood support node and core support only at edges of Old Town
Residential & limited to 2 stories)
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
209 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Structure Features: delete "however, three stories may be appropriate in some circumstances" no change in text, 9/23/08
210 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33 Open Space - "Suburban Res." (2-4.9 u/a) gets 20%, but "Urban" (4-8 u/a) is only 10%?? Dense
developments need more open space, and there is none off-site/nearby for most of these areas.
no change in text, 9/23/08
211 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Development Features, 1st bullet: increase open space from 10% to 30% no change in text, 9/23/08
212 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape" no change in text, 9/23/08
213 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33 Development Features, last bullet: instead of "have designs fitting the context," replace with "look
like a single family dwelling from each different street elevation"
no change in text, 9/23/08
214 8/26/2008 Chamber 34 Purpose: We’re not sure if “workforce housing” is the new term for affordable, diverse housing
opportunities, but wonder if Carmel wants to specify whom they are identifying. Why teachers,
fire fighters and police officers? Why not retail salespeople, roofers and nurses’ aides? We’d
recommend the deletion of the items in parenthesis.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
215 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Purpose: replace text with "To establish opportunities for residents who want a more compact
living environment."
no change in text, 9/23/08
216 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 34 Attached Res: Density- Needs upper limit. In 2006, Commissioners voted 5-2 to cap it at 10 u/a.
DOCS wanted double that, to bring the community "in line with the market", and b/c lower
density=fewer amenities. (Planning and zoning should serve to prevent development from being
market-based, which would often be very unsuitable to an area. Otherwise, there is little point in
either.)
no change in text, 9/23/08
217 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 34 Best Fit- Move "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)", to conditional. No mention of "Neighborhood Support
Center".
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
218 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Best Fit: delete suburban residential and urban residential OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
219 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 34 Conditional Fit - Remove "Low Intensity Sub. Res." (1-1.9 u/a). Densities of the 2 classifications
are much too far apart.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
220 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Conditional Fit: delete Low Intensity Suburban Res OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
221 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Development Features, 1st bullet: increase open space from 20% to 30% no change in text, 9/23/08
222 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape" no change in text, 9/23/08
223 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34 2nd Photo: how about the Amli apartments on 146th? no change in text, 9/23/08
224 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 West Carmel - Not needed or wanted. The 1-mile road grid could put one on every corner. no change in text, 9/23/08
225 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Neighborhood Support Center (NEW): Purpose - These would negatively impact residential
areas by adding light, noise, signs, traffic, trash, and large trucks where they otherwise would not
be.
no change in text, 9/23/08
226 9/19/2008 CWIC2 35 Geographic Location: This needs to be written so as to exclude new locations in Carmel West. no change in text, 9/23/08
227 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Land Uses - Community centers, YMCA's, and most fitness centers are too big for this, and
would be traffic magnets.
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
228 9/19/2008 CWIC2 35 Intensity/Density: 1 mile apart in Carmel West is far more than the area desires—and permitting
these on every non-subdivision intersection in a low-density area makes their viability highly
questionable. These adversely affect the character and desirability of Carmel West.
no change in text, 9/23/08
229 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Density - One mile is too close. Does the 7,500 sq. ft. (approx. 1/6 acre), include parking area? no change in text, 9/23/08
230 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Intensity/Density, 1st bullet: add "neighboring" in front of "developments" no change in text, 9/23/08
14 10/28/2008
231 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Examples - Hard to find any in Carmel b/c suburban residents have chosen not to live next to
nonresidential uses.
no change in text, 9/23/08
232 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Examples: add "see illustration" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
233 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Best Fit: after suburban residential add "except in West Carmel" no change in text, 9/23/08
234 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Conditional Fit - Remove "Estate Residential". OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
235 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Conditional Fit: delete estate residential, add "east carmel only" after Low Intensity Suburban Res no change in text, 9/23/08
236 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Structure Features: Mostly glass fronts look "urban", and would make "activities" totally visible.
Drive-throughs allowed?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
237 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 Structure Features: change max height to 1.5 stories no change in text, 9/23/08
238 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35 Structure Orientation - Only visibility can be partially buffered. Cannot adequately buffer other
impacts listed above.
no change in text, 9/23/08
239 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35 2nd Photo: add photo of bank at village of west clay IN PROGRESS
240 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 West Carmel - These would not "preserve the estate character" or "reinforce rural character",
(page 25). Residents bought in Clay West to avoid living near high density and commercial
intrusion. Estate owners will move away from it.
no change in text, 9/23/08
241 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Purpose: add "and sigle use" after mixed use no change in text, 9/23/08
242 9/19/2008 CWIC2 36 Geographic Location: This needs to be written so as to exclude new locations in Carmel West.
These are incredibly too urban for the character of the area (80,000 sq. ft.! and 6 u/a). These
destroy the very reason most people invested in their homes in Carmel West.
no change in text, 9/23/08
243 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 Land Uses - A "NSN" and a "Commercial Vitality Node (CVN)" differ mainly in size and residential
density. "NSN" allowable uses need to be much more limited and specific.
no change in text, 9/23/08
244 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 Density - Up to 6 u/a is too high. Equivalent to the "Urban" range (4-8 u/a), it is not appropriate for
suburbs. It would just be a loophole to put higher density where it otherwise would not permitted.
no change in text, 9/23/08
245 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 The 80,000 sq. ft. per node, (about 1.84 acres), should be stated here to avoid confusion.
Parking included in that space?
moved, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
246 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 Best Fit - Lower end of "Suburban Res." (2-4.9 u/a) would especially not be best fit. By definition,
"NSN's" should stand alone, to serve "unserved" areas; so remove "NSN" (chart page 44), and
"CVN" (text & chart). Otherwise, the size limits on "NSN'S" become meaningless.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
247 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Best Fit: delete Urban residential OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
248 9/19/2008 CWIC2 36 Conditional Fit: Strike “Suburban Residential.” Strike Low Intensity Suburban Residential from
“Conditional Fit.” People greatly fear that the areas identified as Suburban Residential on the
maps will be used to insert these in Carmel West.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
249 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 Conditional Fit- Remove "Regional Vitality Node (RVN)" and "Core Support". Same reason as
above. List "Core Support" under "CVN" and "RVN", not for "NSN". Remove "Low Intensity Sub.
Res. (1-1.9 u/a)", which is mainly Northwest Clay on the Map. The "NSN" 6 u/a equates to
"Urban Res. (4-8 u/a)", which is correctly not listed as an "Appropriate Adjacent Classification" for
"Low Intensity Sub. Res.".
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
250 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Conditional Fit: delete Low Intensity Suburban Res, add Urban Res (at perimeter only) OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
15 10/28/2008
251 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36 Structure Orientation - Again, nonvisual negative impacts cannot be adequately buffered from
residences. "Use" still matters more than "form" to the public. "Disguising" a non-residential use
to not look like what it is, does not negate the nonvisual impacts of living near it. The Village of
WestClay commercial "NSN" west of Towne Rd. is on the Map as a "CVN". That absolutely needs
to change.
no change in text, 9/23/08
252 8/26/2008 Chamber 36 Development Features: “Strip development is discouraged.” Even if the strip of shops abuts the
street?
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
253 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36 Development Features: replace "is discouraged" with "that are built to the street." deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
254 8/26/2008 Chamber 36 3rd Photo: The caption on the lower picture singles out an existing building. We’d recommend
the use of outside-of-Carmel examples when the document is being critical.
fixed caption, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
255 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Geographic Location, 2nd sentence: replace "integrated into" with "sensitively built when next to
residential"
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
256 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Best Fit: all classifications except "single family residential classifications" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
257 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 37 Conditional Fit - "Suburban Res." should be included here. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
258 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Conditional Fit: single family residential classifications OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
259 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 37 Specify significant buffering of municipal facilities from residences. no change in text, 9/23/08
260 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 Structure Orientation: add "honoring privacy and views of existing single family detached
dwellings"
no change in text, 9/23/08
261 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 37 Development Features - The Community-center-type uses of mega-churches would normally fall
under "NSN" or "CVN". Neither of those lists "Estate Res." as an appropriate adjacent fit, but it is
listed here. In "Conditional Fit" areas, those mixed-uses should be restricted to those that serve
the institution, not the general public.
no change in text, 9/23/08
262 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37 1st Photo caption: delete "a great" example OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
263 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 West Carmel - These should be limited to along Michigan Road. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
264 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 Community Vitality Node (CVN): Purpose - Omit "and neighborhood serving". It blurs the line
between those 2 classifications, which differ in size, density, and hopefully uses.
no change in text, 9/23/08
265 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 Geographic Location - With 10 u/a allowed, and no limit on commercial intensity, these are not
"most appropriate" near "minor" thoroughfares.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
266 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 Examples - On the Map, Merchants Square is a "RVN", and the Village of WestClay "NSN" is
incorrectly shown as a "CVN".
no change in text, 9/23/08
267 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 Best Fit - Omit "NSN" for reasons stated earlier. no change in text, 9/23/08
268 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 38 Best Fit: delete "residential" attached, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
269 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38 Conditional Fit - Lower end of "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)" would especially not be compatible.
"Core Support" is listed under "NSN" and "RVN", but not "CVN"? It should be listed under "CVN"
and "RVN", but not under "NSN".
no change in text, 9/23/08
270 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 38 Conditional Fit: add attached residential, delete suburban and urban residential OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
271 9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison 39 Geographic Location: (appropriate near highways and arterial w/ excellent accesibility) I am
assuming that Keystone Parkway is one of those areas as well as Main St. Problem is this area
is developed currently with residential homes. Again where are you planning to put these
buildings that would not require removals of residential areas first??? Could it be that you are
going to destroy current neighborhood in order to do this part of the C3 plan?? Please explain!!
no change in text, 9/23/08
16 10/28/2008
272 8/26/2008 Chamber 39 Land Uses, 4th Bullet: Fourth bullet – isn’t this a zoning ordinance issue? We’d make the same
comment about the items under Structure Features on this page.
delete "but only" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
273 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 39 Employment Node: Conditional Fit - "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)" is a very questionable fit next to
4 stories with densities up to 14 u/a.
no change in text, 9/23/08
274 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 39 Conditional Fit: delete suburban and urban residential no change in text, 9/23/08
275 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 39 Structure Features, 1st bullet: add "and only two stories next to single family residential
neighborhoods"
no change in text, 9/23/08
276 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 40 Regional Vitality Node (RVN): Conditional Fit - Remove "NSN". If next to a "RVN" (or "CVN"), it is
no longer "neighborhood serving".
no change in text, 9/23/08
277 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 40 Conditional Fit: add "attached" to residential OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
278 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 40 Structure Features: delete "or eight stories if within the US 31 Corridor overlay." What about the
developer who wanted to build a residential tower between Clay Terrace and the residential
neighborhood to the west?
no change in text, 9/23/08
279 8/26/2008 Chamber 40 Development Features: same comments as previous about strip commercial development. deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
280 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 40 Development Features, 1st bullet: instead of "discouraged" replace with "built to the street" deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
281 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Land Uses: delete entertainment no change in text, 9/23/08
282 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 41 Core Support: Best Fit- Since there are no residential or commercial limits on intensity, "Urban
Res. (4-8 u/a)" should move to Conditional.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
283 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Best Fit: delete Urban residential OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
284 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 41 Conditional Fit - Replace "NSN" with "CVN". no change in text, 9/23/08
285 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Conditional Fit: add urban residential (perimeter edges only) no change in text, 9/23/08
286 8/26/2008 Chamber 41 Structure Features: Does this belong in the comp plan or zoning ordinance? no change in text, 9/23/08
287 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Structure Features: add "two story maximim next to urban residential" no change in text, 9/23/08
288 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 41 Open Space - "Attached Res. (7 u/a & up)" requires 20% (half usable), but "Core Support (no
density limits)" only requires 15% (no mention of usable)?
no change in text, 9/23/08
289 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Development Features: increase open space to 20 or 30% no change in text, 9/23/08
290 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41 Development Features: add bullet "Protect pre-development environmental features" no change in text, 9/23/08
291 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 42 Land Uses & Examples: Add "Form Only" to both references to the Village of WestClay.
Residents are wary of attempts to classify it in any way that could expand its current restrictions.
no change in text, 9/23/08
292 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42 Land Uses: should entertainment be SU? Music/noise? no change in text, 9/23/08
293 8/26/2008 Chamber 42 Structure Orientation on Site: Same as above. Detail that in our opinion belongs in the zoning
ordinance.
no change in text, 9/23/08
294 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42 Structure Orientation: add bullet "A maximum of two stories at right-of-way next to single family
detached residential neighborhoods"
no change in text, 9/23/08
295 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42 Development Features, 1st bullet: add "except next to single family detached neighborhoods." no change in text, 9/23/08
296 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42 Development Features: add bullet "Pocket parks are encouraged." OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
297 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43 Geographic Location: delete Old Town (move to secondary core, per map) no change in text, 9/23/08
298 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43 Examples: delete Old Town Shops (move to secondary core, per map) no change in text, 9/23/08
299 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43 1st Photo: move to secondary core no change in text, 9/23/08
300 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43 2nd Photo: there are other nice drawings we could include here OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
301 9/22/2008 DOCS 44 Adjust Table per discussion and to be "symmetrical" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
17 10/28/2008
302 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 44 Land Classification Map Description: 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence-This detailed map will be
"construed" that way. Everyone expects the Comprehensive Plan and zoning to match.
no change in text, 9/23/08
303 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 44 Final paragraph, 1st sentence - The classifications on the Map have density ranges; therefore,
developers will assume that the Map establishes certain density rights.
no change in text, 9/23/08
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
304 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Add back major street names to map OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
305 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM In general the map is too specific (down to the parcel) no change, 9/30/2008
306 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM In general, residential densities should not be increased without an extensive homeowner survey.
I would change them all to their current densities until we get that information.
no change, 9/30/2008
307 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM 131st & Ditch Community Vitality Node should be Neighborhood Support Node OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
308 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM The VWC area with this classification is not compatible with the surrounding area that currently
fits Low Intensity Suburban Residential. Community Vitality Node is not listed as an appropriate
adjacent classification.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
309 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM The VWC area with this classification has a lot of acres with no buildings. This invites Brenwick
to return with a new ordinance using the new classification. The only limit on the commercial
intensity is “the maximum building envelope, maximum impervious surface, and on-site parking
requirements.” We do not believe the City really wants a Merchants Square or West Carmel
Center (examples cited) at this location. Area residents do not. This area is a red-hot button
issue for area residents and increasing the intensity will heat the flames for many residents.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
310 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM This classification would also permit residential density up to 10 u/a, surrounded by homes at a
much, much lower density.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
311 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM If this classification remains, the to-be-expected increase in intensity of use would result in
pressure to change intensity of use on surrounding land.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
312 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM “Location” for Community Vitality Node says it is most appropriate near major thoroughfares.
Michigan Rd is a major thoroughfare and is designed for the truck traffic that a large commercial
area requires. Towne Road is not planned to become a Michigan Rd and the required truck
traffic would change the quality of life for those near Town Road and for those driving through on
their way to and from their homes in the area.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
313 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Since the Community Vitality Node would allow this area to become much more intense than
ever planned, this land does not fit this category. While the approved plan may be larger than the
next lower classification, Neighborhood Service Node, reclassifying it to NSN would be much
less apt to result in Brenwick asking for a new plan that changes what has already been
approved. Neighborhood Service Node is also much more in keeping with the approval it was
granted and promises made by City Council to not allow this area affect surrounding properties.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MAP
VILLAGE OF WESTCLAY
18 10/28/2008
314 9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM Village of WestClay (VWC) Zoning Changes-The commercial area west of Towne Rd. is a
promised "NSN", not an intense "CVN". It is located in an area of "Low Intensity Sub. Res.",
which is not listed as an Appropriate Adjacent Classification to a "CVN". The "CVN" classification
would open up possibilities for the VWC that its approval does not permit.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
315 9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM The VWC, (overall density 2.1 u/a), is NOT "Urban Res. (4-8 u/a)", as on the Map. That
classification could lead to more than doubling the currently permitted density of the portions that
are not yet built out. It would also further increase the rezoning requests from owners of the
surrounding, now "compromised", properties. The "transitioning" from the VWC was supposed to
stop with the Trillium development.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
316 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM VWC’s Urban Residential: CWIC2 support’s Dee Fox’s comment—inadvertently omitted in our
submission. Undeveloped land remains so Brenwick could return with a new ordinance
requesting much higher density, using this classification as the intent of the new Comp Plan.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
10/28/2008 CWIC2 LCM VOWC Still Urban Residential West of Towne Rd. Should be Suburban Residential OCTOBER 31 SUPPLEMENT
317 9/3/2008 Andy Crook LCM DO NOT support suburban residential classification in NW Clay. The map is too much patch
work nature. Support Low Intensity Suburban up to 1.5 instead.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
318 9/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West in 5 locations. Details will be provided
when everyone can look at the map.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
319 9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)-Inappropriate in West Carmel. The lower limit would double current
zoning. The upper limit is "Urban Res. (4-8 u/a), and 5 times the current zoning.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
NO SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (ORANGE) IN WEST CARMEL
19 10/28/2008
320 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: Land south of 116th between Michigan
Rd & Shelborne Rd. Proposed as Suburban Residential, with density between 2.0 to 4.9 two
subdivisions:
a. Includes homes with acreage as well as two subdivisions with very low
densities—Brandywine (0.61 u/a) and Woodhaven (0.77 u/a). Each was built when lots were
required to be a minimum of 1 acre and the expectation was 1 acre lots for the area. The
expectation for large lots was reinforced with the 2020 Comp Plan.
b. Directly east of Brandywine is Bridleborne at a density of 0.40 u/a and English Oaks with
1.26 u/a. To the south is a church and then a fire station on the corner. While these uses are
different from the surrounding developments, their abundance of green space and low intensity of
use is much more compatible than a subdivision with a 4.9 density.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
321 c. The highest density in the entire quadrant is Weston at 2.14, barely over the Suburban
Residential category. But that is misleading: Weston has several sections, each with very
different densities. As part of its approval under the 1st Cluster Ordinance, it was required to
“transition” its density, lowering the u/a as it went eastward. Weston Village, the section farthest
west, abuts the commercial area. It is the densest section, above 2.14. Weston Park, the section
between Weston Village and Brandywine, is less dense with houses abutting Brandywine on 1/3
acre lots. North of Brandywine is Weston Ridge, with ½ acre lots. It is appropriate to include the
section of Weston closest to the commercial area in Suburban Residential, but not appropriate to
include the rest of this quadrant. This quadrant should be divided into different zoning
classifications that more appropriately fit what currently exists. (Marilyn: “I have a personal stake
in this. I live in Brandywine on a 1 acre lot. I would never have bought and built in an area zoned
for even a 2.0 u/a.”)
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
322 d. Between 96th and 106th west of Shelborne are single family estate lots abutting 106th St.
and two subdivisions with densities of 1.76 and 2.13. An argument could perhaps be made that
this section is more appropriately zoned Low Intensity Suburban Residential, with a density of 1.0
to 1.9. That is more compatible with the Estate Residential category to its east.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
323 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: West of Towne Road abutting the
Village of WestClay is the Fortune Property, now platted as Trillium at a density of 1.76. The
approved density clearly fits the Low Intensity Suburban Residential category. Why isn’t it
labeled as such? The ground is still bare so this category could easily result in Adams &
Marshall vacating that approved plan and returning with a new plan at 4.9 u/a that would then
no change, 9/30/2008
324 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: Northwest corner of Towne Road &
131st (Guerrero Property). We’ve had this fight before—you know the issues. As part of its
approval, the VWC was promised to be the exception in the area and was promised to be
contained. Zoning this as Suburban Residential violates the promises and should not be done.
no change, 9/30/2008
20 10/28/2008
325 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: East side of Towne Rd from about
136th to 141st. Every surrounding subdivision has a density of less than 1.42 with an average of
1.33. Suburban Residential would almost quadruple the density. Where’s the compatibility?
How would you like to own a home that now backs up to this drastic change from what was
expected.
no change, 9/30/2008
326 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: Two locations along 146th St. Density
of adjoining subdivisions averages approx. 1.48 u/a. The proposed density is about 3.5 times as
high. Where is the compatibility?
146th Special Study, OCTOBER 23
DRAFT
327
328 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Green (1 unit per acre) should be used for all residential areas from 96th to 146th and Spring Mill
to Michigan Rd,. except for existing developments that exceed 1 unit per acre now.
no change, 9/30/2008
329 9/22/2008 CWIC2 LCM Except for where the map correctly classifies currently existing development/zoning, all land west
of Springmill Rd needs to be zoned Estate Residential.
no change, 9/30/2008
330 9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM A density spreadsheet based on DOCS figures shows subdivision density averages west of
Spring Mill Road: All=1.18 u/a; North of 116th St.=1.28 u/a; South of 116th=1.05 u/a/ (If included
private landowners, area numbers would be even lower.)
no change, 9/30/2008
331 9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM Low intensity Sub. Res-Up to 1.9 u/a for most of Northwest Clay is still too high, for reasons
stated previously under that classification. Residents see no reason to raise density limits at all,
especially not beyond the levels of most existing developments. Since currently zoned density
limits, (1.0 u/a), have not been enforced, why would anyone believe that higher limits would be?
Doubling the density would also be incompatible with the estate character of West Carmel.
no change, 9/30/2008
332 9/15/2008 Karen Gould LCM I reside in Laurel Lakes Subdivision at 126th and Towne Road. I am opposed to any increase in
the housing density in this area. We moved here because of the lack of high density housing,
and the housing in WestClay is dense enough. We do not need any more apartments in this
area or more houses crammed onto an acre of land. There is no need to increase the density
any further in this area.
no change, 9/30/2008
333 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Carmel west of Springmill Rd. currently averages approx. 1.22 u/a. South of 116th St. averages
approx. 1.05 u/a. while north of 116th St. averages approximately 1.28 u/a.
no change, 9/30/2008
334 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Reducing the top density to 1.5 u/a is helpful, but the intent is in conflict with the plan for
incentives. With a zoned density of 1.5 u/a, any development of any quality could be developed
at 1.5 u/a. Incentives would not have any value, since they only work if the developer gains
something he otherwise could not do. If the density is 1.5 u/a but density is used as an
incentive, it can be expected that some developments would end up closer to the 1.9, even
though that supposedly is not the intent.
no change, 9/30/2008
335 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM Except for where the map correctly classifies currently existing development/zoning, all land west
of Springmill Rd needs to be zoned Estate Residential. Estate Residential is in keeping with the
character of the area, in keeping with the current zoning that people believed they were getting
when they invested in their homes, and in keeping with what the vast majority of the residents in
the area strongly desire
no change, 9/30/2008
336
LOW INTENSITY SUBURBAN (YELLOW) TOO DENSE FOR WEST CARMEL
WEST CARMEL: OTHER
21 10/28/2008
337 9/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM East Carmel has 10 parks & river greenway. Central has 5 & Monon Greenway. West has 1 City
park & 1 County park. Why aren’t we identifying where the next park should go before there is
no land left?
no change, 9/30/2008
338 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Along Spring Mill Rd, the existing residential neighborhoods need to be labeled with the density
they currently have. I doubt that they will be redeveloped before the next comp plan update
occurs.
no change, 9/30/2008
339 9/26/2008 Steve Pittman LCM I am also very concerned that the Comprehensive Plan continues to encourage sprawl.
Neighborhoods like The Reserve at Spring Mill, Williams Mill, Spring Arbor and Ashbury Park
could not be duplicated in many places on the west side of Carmel. We need to find places
where more dense, vibrant and creative communities can be created on the west side. We need
to be aware of the impact of the new 146th St on the west side of Carmel and plan appropriately.
Please consider changing the entire corridor from 141st to 146th St to Suburban Residential from
the Boone County Line to Town Rd. In addition, this is the ideal area for a large outdoor sports
park that our community needs and wants. This is ideal for this use because it could be
accessed off of a busy 146th St and be less invasive to residential.
146th Special Study Corridor, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
340 X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan LCM Add 40 acres Parks & Recreation to West Park to reflect expansion SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
341 X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan LCM Add Greek Orthodox Church (106th/Shelborne) and Hebrew Congregation (W of University HS)
as Institutional
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
342
343 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Could we put a park at the Monon and Main, SW corner? I have had several people ask for
this….It would be an ideal location for a gazebo, park benches and bike parking during the Arts
festival. Most old towns have this amenity.
no change
344 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM West of the Monon just south of there should be urban residential, not core support extend sec core and core support to 4th
Ave. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
345 9/16/2008 Roger Kilmer LCM If the north meridian heights rezone goes through, we should update this land classification map
to change the meridian heights neighborhood (located east of US 31 and 131st st.) from the
peach color (suburban residential) to the blue color (employment node).
EMPLOYMENT, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
346 9/30/2008 James Browning LCM I am writing as a local real estate developer as well as a West Clay Township resident. I have
reviewed the proposed changes to the Land Use Plan and I am generally supportive of the plan
as proposed. The areas which I have particular interest is the proposed use for the Meridian
Heights Subdivision. This area has previously been slated to be commercial uses. Based on
Browning Investments propsed commercial development for this area and the overwhelming
majority of residents who have contracted to sell their property for commercial uses, it seems
only practical to leave the Comprehensive Plan in tact with a commercial use recommendation.
EMPLOYMENT, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
NORTH CENTRAL CARMEL
22 10/28/2008
347 11/10/2008 Historical Society LCM The Carmel Clay Historical Society supports an "Urban Residential" zoning designation for the
site of our Monon Depot Museum and grounds at 211 First St. SW, and the entirety of the
surrounding neighborhood. It is also essential that "Character Areas" in Carmel be described
clearly in official language as banning townhomes, and that the rule of five (5) units per acre be
strictly adhered to during future development.
Infill housing of greater than five units per acre would clearly be in stark contrast to the historic
context of this unique urban area. Since the Plan Commission recently refused to rezone part of
this Character sub-area, specifically to safeguard three properties on First St. SW because of the
negative impact such a rezoning would have on this predominantly one-story neighborhood, it is
now essential that all Character Areas be firmly and permanently designated "Urban Residential"
on the City Land Use Map, and that townhomes not be allowed within these residential areas.
349
350 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM SW corner of 116th and Westfield Blvd should be Orange. We ruled out higher density when we
denied Townhomes at Central Park.
urban res, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
351 9/25/2008 Mike Johnson LCM The current land use plan identifies the land on the north side of 96th Street, between Haverstick
Road and Westfield Boulevard for low density residential use. In my opinion, this is not the best
use of this land. The properties east of Haverstick are commercial properties. Some of the
homes on the north side of 96th Street, west of Haverstick Road, are already being used for
commercial use. The Washington Township Land Use Plan identifies all of the land on the south
side of 96th Street between Keystone Avenue and Westfield Boulevard and south to the
interstate for office commercial use, community commercial use and heavy commercial use. The
future development of the land on the south side of 96th Street, for commercial use, should
influence how the land on the north side of 96th Street is developed. In my opinion, the land on
the north side of 96th Street should be identified for similar commercial development. Existing
and future residents living in this area would benefit from business development along this
corridor.
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
352 9/26/2008 Steve Pittman LCM The area between Westfield Blvd and Haverstick north of and adjacent to 96th St should also be
looked at closely as an area in transition. South of 96th St and north of and adjacent to I465 will
be commercial and is currently under contract by a commercial developer. This development will
have an impact on the area north of 96th St. I am not suggesting how this area change only that
it will change and I recommend that we look to our planning staff and paid consultant for
guidance.
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
353 10/31/2008 Pat Rice LCM the Land Classification map should include The Retreat area which includes the ROW for 96th
St. extension to the Monon. It should also include all the way over to Keystone from 96th to
99th. Was this overlooked? The map in this section correctly brackets over to Keystone.
354 31 CORRIDOR
355 8/19/2008 Steve Pittman LCM 116th & Spring Mill: Potential to create something for west-siders to avoid crossing 31. Difficult
for service/office workers to get anywhere on their lunch hours. Intense office next to large lot
single family does not make sense from a planning perspective.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
SOUTH CENTRAL CARMEL
23 10/28/2008
356 8/21/2008 Barbara Layton LCM No Commercial West of Illinois, believe Pittman farm can be developed residentially Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
357 9/9/2008 Luci Snyder LCM US 31: While acknowledging that the land west of Springmill Road is and should remain
residential, as a member of the fiscal body, I believe that Meridian commercial corridor should
have Springmill as its western boundary.
The Meridian Corridor is our high profile business corridor and as such, generates the taxes that
help keep residential property taxes low.
The only remaining large area of land available for signature/headquarter development is that
between Illinois and Springmill. Carmel must protect that for the highest and best commercial use
to guarantee that the necessary commercial tax base as we close out our available land.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
358 9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison LCM I do not understand why the Meridian Surburban neighborhood is in the Regional Vitality Node.
That is the neighborhood just south of 111th and and just west of Meridian. I hope the residents
in this area have been made aware of this change.
no change, 9/30/2008
359 9/25/2008 Mike Johnson LCM It appears that the proposed land use plan identifies the area from 111th Street north to 116th and
east from Spring Mill Road to west of Illinois St. for low and medium density residential use. In
my personal opinion, when you take the future development of US 31, along with the existing
commercial office space and Clarian hospital into consideration, this is not the best use for this
land. This land is better suited for low or medium density commercial use. It is unlikely that
prospective home buyers would be attracted to low or medium density residential properties that
are directly adjacent to mid-rise office buildings and/or a hospital, due to the setting, traffic
volume and traffic noise.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
360 9/26/2008 Steve Pittman LCM It is my belief that the property in the general vicinity of 116th and US 31 West to Spring Mill Rd,
South to 111th St and North to Spring Lake Estates subdivision should be planned to allow for
intense commercial development. I also believe that more intense uses should occur on the west
side of Spring Mill Rd. We shouldn’t be provincial in our thinking and try to compartmentalize
development and planning. As a community we are blessed to still have so much ground in this
area to create a sense of place for businesses and residents on the west side. It is inconceivable
to develop and build residential between Illinois St and Spring Mill Rd. Illinois Street is a major
road w 120 of row. In addition, its adjacency to the future limited access highway US 31, the
truck and commercial traffic on US 31 and the relocated truck traffic from Keystone, the
helicopters flying overhead to and from Clarian Hospital make residential impractical and
destined to fail or never happen.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
361 This plan for the area between Illinois and Spring Mill Rd represents yesterday’s thinking of 25
years ago. The world has drastically changed. This is not fiscally responsible either. We need to
continue to grow a strong commercial tax base. Why are we willing to allow commercial east of
Pennsylvania Ave. but not west of Illinois? This does not make any sense. Residents and
employers / employees in west Carmel want to see dynamic development that would allow for
restaurants, offices, hotels and the amenities that development like this would provide. They are
not stuck in the old way of thinking. Please consider changing this area to Regional Vitality
Node.
24 10/28/2008
362 9/26/2008 Ivan Barrett LCM I currently work in the high end residential home building and development market. In the
marketing and sales of our high end subdivisions on the West side of Carmel I am continually
asked about the nearest retail services/convenience area(s) on the West side of Carmel. Many
buyers who are looking to move into Carmel from other parts of the country have expectations
that there would be commercial conveniences in close proximity to their residences. They are
often discouraged at the lack of diversity and uses west of Meridian. It is for that reason that I
encourage you to plan for a special area West of Meridian that would include such services as
offices, retail uses including grocery options, hospitality, medical, etc. It is apparent to me that the
best place to create such a node would be in the area of 116th and US31, West to Spring Mill
Rd. Housing is not an appropriate or best use for this area.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
363 9/26/2008 Irina Powers LCM Please express my strong opposition to housing developments included in the Comprehensive
Plan update along the Meridian - Springmill corridor. West Carmel is grossly lacking in
commercial mixed use developments. More housing does not benefit residents of the west side.
A commercial mixed use development such as restaurants, shops, etc. would be the ideal choice
for this side of town. My family and I must travel to the north side of 146th Street or 421 to eat,
shop, etc. Commercial uses for the area would provide the greatest benefit to residents of
western Carmel.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
364 9/26/2008 Jack & Kathy Gordon LCM We are homeowners on the west side of Carmel, and we would love to see some further
commercial development on our side of town. This side of town is clearly void of the amenities
like gas stations, restaurants and other conveniences. The obvious choices are the properties
on the northeast and southeast corners of Springmill Road and 116th St. That is a perfect
location for commercial development as it backs up to mid-size office buildings and a large
hospital and is a crossroads for residents travelling both east/west and north/south. I hope that
Carmel will have some foresight rather than looking into the past when making decision about the
future of this area.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
365 9/26/2008 Randy Yust LCM The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois should be rezoned Employment Node for many
reasons. Clarian North has a helipad. The BZA recently declined to approve St. V Heart Center’s
helipad b/c the “noise emanating from the proposed use may awaken adjacent residents.” Similar
distances between helipad and residential would exist if this land were to be developed as
residential properties. The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois should be
rezoned Employment Node b/c the flight plan for the helicopters that land at Clarian North.
Although the primary flight plan uses the 31 corridor, inclement weather often alters flight plans,
causing the helicopters to cross over the land between Spring Mill and Illinois. Why would we put
residential housing in an area where a medical helicopter would fly over?
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
25 10/28/2008
366 Residential zoning of the vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois is not the public’s best
interest. Suburban residential properties, located near a helipad and next to a busy regional
medical center, would not be able to return high value. Best use would be commercial, w/ access
onto Spring Mill prohibited. Entry/exit onto property should only be allowed off of Illinois.
US 31 will become a limited access highway w/ 116th St being a major intersection. Not only will
there be significant traffic in this area there will be significant noise w/ all the normal truck traffic
on US 31 but the added truck traffic has been relocated from Keystone. In addition, Illinois St. is
becoming a major road to move local traffic. This will increase significantly when US 31 becomes
limited access. It is important to finish the last leg of Illinois St. down to 106th St prior to
construction commencement on US 31 in 2011. It is inconceivable that you would have
residential use in such a corridor. It is poor planning and an irresponsible use of such prime land
to maximize our tax base.
367 Commercial development on vacant properties along Illinois St should be encouraged. As the city
can see complete buildout w/in 10 years, NAV will flatten. We should take every opportunity to
encourage commercial development in this area to keep property taxes low for residents.
368 9/26/2008 Rob & Anne Kelton LCM I am writing to you regarding the property from Meridian St. to Springmill Rd., from 111th St. to
116th St. After reviewing the land use map of the Carmel Comprehensive Plan, we strongly urge
you to make the property all commercial. It seems unrealistic, inappropriate and absurd that any
of that property would be anything but COMMERCIAL.
As a registerd nurse in Indiana, I can't imagine not using that property for a first class
development that the patients and hospital staff can walk to without crossing Meridian St. With
that area being easily accessible to Meridian St. in a high traffic area and conducive to attracting
business, it certainly seems that having businesses on that property would be beneficial to
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
369 There is not a shortage of homes in the area. The city could use more money to help pay for all of
the improvements that have been made, such as athletic centers and theatres. If we remember
correctly, there were an awful lot of people who were not happy about the Monon trail be
extended through their backyards, but the city decided to put it through for the greater good of the
majority and to improve the appeal of the city. To not apply the same thinking to other
development issues seems nothing less than bias and corrupt.
Given today's economy with $700 billion bailouts, we need revenue for our city. What we don't
need is more homes.
370 9/26/2008 Peter Powers LCM I would like to express my support for the inclusion of a commercial mixed use project along the
Springmill corridor for the Comprehensive Plan Update. As a resident and business owner in
west Carmel I feel there is a lack of viable commercial development and places to go on this side
of town. A mixed use project would be the best use of the corridor and I do not feel that housing
is compatible with the surrounding area.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
26 10/28/2008
371 9/26/2008 Bob McKinney LCM As a landowner in western clay township, custom builder and owner of Weichert Real Estate
Agency, I want to strongly encourage the leaders of the City of Carmel to plan western clay
township in a manner that is beneficial to the city as a whole. I am very concerned that west clay
be treated in a manner that is different than the rest of Carmel and in a manner that is detrimental
not only to the whole but to those of us who have made significant investments on the west side
of Carmel. It is my hope that we would encourage strong commercial uses on the west side of
meridian, that a development is created on the west side of meridian that would serve the people
who live on the west side and those who are employed on the west side. I know it is very
discouraging to the homeowners that I talk to, the business owners that I talk to and the potential
high end customers that we deal with who are required to jump in their car and drive far
distances for minor conveniences.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
372 We need to create a hub in the area of 116th Street and Spring Mill Rd for a tremendous
development that properly utilizes the precious and dwindling land resources we have left. I
envision an area that contains offices both professional and medical, hospitality w hotels and
restaurants. I would be hopeful that amenities like walking trails, water features, fire pits, sand
volleyball courts and pocket parks could be created to compete w such places as silicon valley,
Boston’s technology corridor, Denver and any other great place where creative and successful
people are attracted to. Please do not allow for the degradation of our tax base by requiring
housing to go into areas where housing will fail and a use which further encourages the need for
the construction of more schools and higher taxes.
373 9/26/2008 John Levinsohn LCM As a resident of Western Clay Township, I am writing you today in reference to the C3
Comprehensive Plan that is currently under consideration and specifically about the underutilized
property surrounding the intersection of 116th Street and Springmill Road. The immediate area
has evolved into a first class commercial corridor that contains immense employment
opportunities as well as substantial revenue for the City. It is my hope that we can further enrich
this area by providing additional commercial assets of the same stature and supplementing those
assets with services that the population, both day time and full time, may enjoy.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
374 While I know there is a vocal minority that opposes the type of planning that should be applied to
this area; the idea that Springmill Road is some sort of demarcation that needs to be buffered
hinders the power of sound planning for the highest and best use of those properties and
subsequently the City as a whole. Given what has been accomplished by the City of Carmel in
recent years I expect that those properties will represent planning and development worthy of
national recognition. I appreciate the efforts you all put forth to ensure that the City and its
residents continue to prosper. Thank you for your time.
375 9/29/2008 RJ Rudolph LCM As you are aware our company Resource Commercial Real Estate is the agent for the sale of the
Conseco 48.62 acres on the southwest corner of 116th and Spring Mill Road. Over the
past year and a half much of the interest we have received on the site from potential buyers is for
higher density residential and assisted living and some from retail support.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
27 10/28/2008
376 Now that Keystone Avenue has been designated as the residential corridor and Meridian Street
is planned to be a limited access highway and commercial and with the new residential
development over the past several years on the west side of Meridian Street, there is increased
demand for business services and amenities on the west side of Meridian Street at 116th for
convenience of people living and working in the area. Many of the buyers / developers
that have shown interest in the Conseco ground either for assisted living and higher density
residential are attracted to the site because of it’s proximity to The Clarian North Medical Center,
The Indiana Heart Hospital and St. Vincent’s North Hospital that would also increase the demand
for services on the west side of Meridian Street.
377 With Carmel’s recent roadway and infrastructure up grades in the area, the existing office parks
and planned office building projects and the addition of a major medical facility it makes sense to
have higher density residential mixed with retail support as a buffer to single family residential
further west of the site. If the land owners in the direct vicinity including Clarian North,
Fidelity Office Park, Conseco and Pittman Properties jointly planned developments carefully with
all land owners and residents in mind it could be a tremendous asset to Carmel residents.
The general economy, cost of living and the cost of fuel are causing people to take a very hard
look at where they live and shop as it relates to where they work. Having a wider variety of
residential developments and support services west of Meridian at 116th would be a true benefit
to the entire area.
378 9/29/2008 Tom Osborne LCM My family and I have been a resident of west Carmel for 17 years, 13 of which I resided at 130th
and Spring Mill Road. I’m very familiar with the traffic patterns and needs of the area. My family
and I moved to west Carmel when there were only a few subdivisions west of Meridian Street.
We have seen positive growth in the area that was well planned, but there is one thing that has
been lacking for the residents and that is good commercial and retail support and amenities west
of US 31. As Meridian Street has evolved from lightly traveled highway to a soon to be limited
access freeway, it has become much more difficult and dangerous to travel across it.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
379 The intersection at 116th and Spring Mill provides Carmel the opportunity to allow something
uniquely special to be developed there due to the large amount of land that exists in an area that
is mostly developed. With the advent of quality mixed use developments we have seen here and
though out progressive communities around the country, and the benefits they provide their
surrounding communities, it would only make sense that the area around 116th and Spring Mill
be planned to provide the same benefits. Mixed use projects that include higher density
residential and support retail and office are the perfect buffer between the single family
residences to the west and the offices, hospital and highway to the east. In the age of where
people are wanting and needing to drive less, allowing mixed use developments to take place at
116th and Spring Mill makes more sense today then ever.
28 10/28/2008
380 9/29/2008 Michael Puckett LCM SePRO Corporation is one of many businesses occupying the Fidelity Plaza office park located
on the Southeast corner of Meridian and 116th Street. As both an occupant and a building owner
in the office park, we have been significantly impacted in a negative manner as a result of the
Illinois Street and 116th Street modifications that have occurred over the last several years.
Similar to other buildings in Fidelity Plaza, the occupancy of our office building has declined
significantly in recent years and interest in available space has waned. While we recognize that
several factors play into this trend, feedback from both existing and potential tenants consistently
includes two issues: 1) difficulty in accessing our park due to the requirement to enter from Illinois
Street on the west side of the property/lack of access through Fidelity Plaza’s main entrance on
116th Street and 2) lack of amenities in the adjoining areas including restaurants, dry cleaners,
etc. Currently, everyone doing business on the west side of Meridian Street is required, at a
minimum, to drive east to Pennsylvania Street to reach any significant retail/convenience
shopping area.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
381 After taking time to review the proposed Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan, we have
noted that the property just west of Fidelity Plaza, which would include the property just north of
111th Street, west of Illinois Street, south of 116th Street and East of Spring Mill Road, is to be
zoned residential. From our perspective, it would be best if this property was zoned as either a
Community Vitality Node or a Regional Vitality Node. While some high-density housing might be
successful in this area, we do not believe zoning the entire area residential will be the best use of
this land as it relates to the surrounding communities, including the businesses in the area. As a
building owner in the area, we would like to see the area just West of Meridian Street between
111th Street and 116th Street become a strong business community; however, this area is being
placed at a disadvantage to areas east of Meridian Street based on the currently planned zoning
requirements.
382 We request that you reconsider the zoning plans for the above referenced area between Illinois
Street and Spring Mill Road and zone this area as either Community Vitality Node or Regional
Vitality Node. This zoning will allow for much needed commercial development in the area.
383 9/29/2008 John Moorin LCM I would like to give you my comments regarding the use of space in the comprehensive plan. My
name is John Moorin and I live in Windemere at the corner of 106th and Towne. I recently sold
my company Wabash Medical Company. My business was located in Marion County. This is the
3rd business I have sold in my 18 years as an Indiana resident. None of these businesses have
ever been located in Hamilton County. I would very much like to
have the opportunity to do so at some point in my career. It would allow me to be closer to my
home and family and Hamilton County is a wonderful place to live.
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
Unfortunately there really is no good commercial park that I know of around. We need one that
will attract business to locate and grow. We compete on a regional and national level for our
employees.and they look for a more modern environment than what this county currently offers.
Employees today want to be able to have convenient retail next to them. They want to be able to
eat and shop next to where they are. They want places to with walking trails, bike paths and other
outdoor activities. These types of things can lure the best and brightest to us. Being close to
residential is a plus because people wouldn't have to commute nearly as far and we can limit
sprawl.
29 10/28/2008
I have heard that people don't want commercial uses in that area. We already have that with
Clarian and we should leverage that to our advantage. It would be a great technology and Life
science corridor. Businesses would seek this place as a home in which they wanted to stay. The
office park around it is struggling. If this were developed with creativity and energy then that park
would reap the benefit as well.
This would increase home and land values, create terrific work space and be something the
community could be proud to claim. The commercial development on Michigan road has been
so plain. Large parking lots and big box stores. This does not promote anything that we should
want in at 116th and Springmill. Let's not waste this opportunity but maximize what it can do for
the community. We should be thinking about increasing the tax base to
support the performing arts center and the Monon center. Those are nice amenities and have set
a high standard. Please keep your standards high for all of us citizens.
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
384 9/29/2008 CWIC2 CWIC2 acknowledges that the needs of residents that live along thoroughfares must be balanced
against the needs of the greater community for efficient and effective traffic movement. We
support connectivity as a guiding principle and roadways constructed to handle the traffic
demand. We support the bike lanes since we know all too well how much one bike rider can
back up traffic on the current roadways. Gridlock benefits no one.
We do ask that you do everything possible to minimize the impact on the affected neighbors.
Please consider carefully the following:
1. Can the medians required for trees be reduced while still maintaining healthy trees? Perhaps
some good street trees require less space.
2. Are side paths to take 10 feet each side of the roads or is this for both? (Totaling the numbers
in the illustrations does not come to the right-of-way numbers). We support side paths and do
not wish them to be too narrow, but neither do we wish them to be “expansive.” Ten foot each
side seems much beyond what is needed.
no change, 9/30/2008
3. There is right-of-way extending some distance past the paths. Please explain the use of this
right-of-way. Can this be reasonably reduced?
4. Areas where homes and neighborhoods were established before the existing Thoroughfare
Plan was developed usually lack the needed right-of-way. Those residents would sometimes
have to give up significant pieces of their yard. We ask that the proposed Plan be sensitive to
this and make every reasonable accommodation to treat the road in context with its
surroundings. For example: Keystone, Hazel Dell, 116th St., and Towne Road are all classified
as Primary Parkway. Obviously Keystone is of a different magnitude than Hazel Dell, and Carmel
West is different in character from Carmel East.
385 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 53 Collector Street-Define buffer planting. no change, 9/30/2008
PART 4: TRANSPORTATION PLAN
30 10/28/2008
386 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 55, 56, 62 Parking on Residential Parkways? Spring Mill is classified a residential parkway. no parking
387 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 55,56 Residential Parkway 2 or 4 lane: General Description-There are already many driveway
accesses on these roads. Reducing driveway access is not compatible with maintaining
"residential character".
4-lane deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
388 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 55,56 Primary Priorities-For 2 lane Residential and Primary Parkways, a minimum 16 ft median seems
unnecessary and excessive through residential areas. It would move the road too close to
adjacent homes.
no change, 9/30/2008
389 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 55,56 The photo example of Residential Parkway 4 Lane, (Hazel Dell), is a larger "Primary Parkway"
on the map.
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
390 9/9/2008 Peter Langowski 56 The Residential Parkway page shows a picture of Hazel Dell, but then the map says that all of
Hazel Dell is a Primary Parkway.
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
391 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 58 Primary Parkway (Towne Rd, 116th, 131st, Keystone, & Hazel Dell) - I hope that the Primary
Priority of "Sensitive to context" means that Carmel does not intend to treat Towne Rd. or 116th
St. the same as Keystone or Hazel Dell. Such major streets would not be in keeping with the
character of West Carmel.
no change, 9/30/2008
392 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 58 Is an exit ramp planned at Towne Rd. and I-465, south of 96th? not that we're aware
393 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 60 Secondary Arterial (Shelborne Rd, College, Carmel Dr, Oak Ridge Rd.)-The photo example is a
"Primary Parkway" on the map.
no change, 9/30/2008
394 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 60 No median is required here. Why should Towne Rd require a 40 ft greater Right of Way than
Shelborne Rd?
no change, 9/30/2008
395 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 61 Primary Arterial-This is the widest, most intense street classification (more than Keystone's). 96th
St is an odd choice, especially if the C3 Plan's intent is to preserve any residential character
there.
parts changed on map
396 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 62 Street Classification Chart does not include bike or ped treatment required. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
397 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 62 Street Classification Chart: Add "Median sizes", "Sidewalks/Paths", & "Bicycle lanes". OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
398 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 62 Urban Collector St.-Change Right of Way from 55 to 66 feet. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
399 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 62 Residential Parkway 2 lane-Change Right of way to 100 feet. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
400 8/6/2008 Pat Rice Thorough Plan Recommend 96th from Haverstick to Westfield is Primary Pkwy instead of Primary Arterial OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
401 8/14/2008 Adam Houghton Thorough Plan Residential Parkways are too large/unsafe for current conditions on residential streets including
Four Seasons Way. (this reflects west side connectivity exhibit)
no change, 9/30/2008
402 9/8/2008 Adam Houghton Thorough Plan The Thoroughfare plan includes a number of streets in the northwest corner of Carmel to be
converted from residential streets to residential parkways. Given that these new parkways will
go through established neighborhoods is there not a substantial safety risk associated with the
increased volume of traffic and the fact that a large number of houses will connect directly to
these parkways (very different to other parkways such as Ditch road where few houses connect
directly). In addition will this conversion to parkways (which would require widening the roads)
involve significant acquisition of land from existing home owners resulting in negative effects on
home values? Given that the current grid system in this area (Towne, 131st etc) will go through
significant improvements in the future, providing significant additional capacity, and that building
densities will remain low in these areas I am unable to see the justification for or benefit of
additional parkways in this area.
no change, 9/30/2008
31 10/28/2008
403 9/9/2008 Peter Langowski Thorough Plan Please remember that when Hazel Dell funding was originally approved the stipulation that the
section of Hazel Dell north of 116th was to be a secondary parkway (the terminology at the time)
and the uninhabited portion south of 116th was to be the primary parkway (essentially a county
highway) was an important feature that residents like myself and others felt was a very important
distinction to the orderly growth of the east side of Carmel. The Hazel Dell area residents were
few in number then and we understood the reasons that our western neighbors near Gray Road
had to rebuild Hazel Dell as a "four lane highway" as Mr. Battreal and others stated at the time.
But the folks near Hazel Dell are also east side residential Carmel residents and are in much
greater numbers now. I still feel that it is important that the northern portion of Hazel Dell not
become a speed-through corridor for our Westfield and Noblesville neighbors to the north who
have not adhered to their old comprehensive plans.
no change, 9/30/2008
With the large increase in the City portion of my property tax bill this past year I have no interest
in the plan to build the two additional lanes on the north end of Hazel Dell, invite more traffic, and
then pay to maintain the wear and tear until I pass from this earth. Of course there will then be
pressure to further commercialize corners like 131st and Hazel Dell on the two southern
corners. The empty lot on the north side of 131st was zoned for business in 1995, thirteen years
ago and other than over by River Road and 146th we have been fully built out residential on the
east side for several years now. There just is not a demand to serve ourselves out in the
neighborhoods with any more retail. A Primary Parkway with some large retail areas on the
south end in reclaimed mineral extraction areas with a County highway running through the north
end to bring Morse Lake shoppers down is the vision of the east side we don't want to see.
Hazel Dell should not be the conduit for a retail war, them trying to draw Carmel shoppers north
of 146th and "us" trying to draw them down at 96th.
404 9/29/2008 John Tintera Thorough Plan Since all of the potential changes resulting from a future 96th St & Westfield Bvld Area Study are
not shown in the Thoroughfare Plan Map and Land Classification Plan Map, consider temporarily
removing the proposed roundabout and 96th and Haverstick until the transportation issues in this
area are resolve with a future Study. The Planning Staff and Engineering will benefit from
additional time to determine if actual traffic counts on Haverstick are sufficient to support a
proposed roundabout or whether alternatives should be considered.
no change, 9/30/2008
405 9/29/2008 Dee Fox Thorough Plan Thoroughfare Plan Map: Residential Parkways on the map do not specify 2 or 4 lanes. 4 lane deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
406 9/29/2008 CWIC2 Thorough Plan There is a description for Residential Parkway 2-lane and Residential Parkway 4-lane, but these
are not distinguished on the map. Please identify where each is planned.
4 lane deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
407 9/29/2008 Dee Fox Thorough Plan The DOCS has a list of how roads have been changed from the new 2020 Plan (2005), including-
1) Urban Arterial (90') and Urban Collector (66') are new classifications. 2) Of the other 9
classifications, 4 had Right of Ways (ROW) increased by 10 ft, and "Residential Parkway 4 lane"
increased by 20 ft. 3) In West Carmel- a. 7 roads increased from Collector (2020 Plan=80'
ROW, now 90'; no median) to Residential Parkway (2020 plan 4 lane=100' ROW, now 120'; 12
foot median). b. 131st St. increased from Residential Parkway (120' ROW; 12 ft median) To
Primary Parkway (140' ROW; 16' median.) c. 96th St. increased from Residential Parkway (120'
ROW; 12' median) To Primary Arterial (150' ROW; no median.)
no change, 9/30/2008
32 10/28/2008
408 9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
Thorough Plan Marilyn served on the Plan Commission when the current Transportation Plan was developed. At
that time, no definitive information was available about the State’s plan for 421/Michigan Rd.
Shelborne Road was classified as a Secondary Arterial because of the need for major N/S
thoroughfares. Things have changed. Michigan Road will be easily accessed by the two
planned Primary Parkways of 131st and 116th and the 4-lane 146th St. It is worth reconsidering
how far east from Michigan Road it remains important for the City to spend the money for a 4-
lane N/S road. At the very least, between 96th & 116th, it makes sense to encourage traffic to
move to Michigan Road.
no change, 9/30/2008
409 9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
Thorough Plan With the expansion of Michigan Road to 4 lanes plus turn lanes south of 116th, Shelborne Road
south of 116th is no longer needed to carry the same weight as in the previous plan.
no change, 9/30/2008
410 9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
Thorough Plan 116th St. is planned as a Primary Parkway and will need to carry the east and west bound traffic.
Regardless of what happens with Shelborne Road, the City will have to pay the costs for
upgrading 116th St. Since Shelborne at 116th is only 1-mile from Michigan Rd. and even less far
south of 116th, a 4-lane Shelborne south of 116th may not be the best use of funds.
no change, 9/30/2008
411 9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
Thorough Plan There are homes and subdivisions on Shelborne south of 116th St. that pre-existed the last
Thoroughfare Plan. This means the City does not already have the right-of-way, but would have
to purchase it and the City could avoid bringing the road very close to some homes.
no change, 9/30/2008
412 9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
Thorough Plan There are existing single family homes outside of subdivisions that will have no option but to
enter/exit a 4-lane road. Brandywine’s exit/entrance sits at a dip in the road for southbound
traffic, which already makes exiting Brandywine hazardous during rush hour
no change, 9/30/2008
413 9/30/2008 Fred Yde Thorough Plan Comprehensive and Thoroughfare Plan for SW Clay – By October 25, 2007, Carmel shall initiate
a process by which the existing Comprehensive and Thoroughfare Plan for the Annexation
Territory will be made available for review and revision as necessary and advisable. Public
meetings will be held in the Annexation Territory for input, prior to any changes being made. No
decision to build or expand any road in the Annexation Territory other than Illinois Street or
Commerce Drive from its current size or character will be made prior to January 2012… This last
sentence (1) shall not prohibit Carmel from accepting roads that are dedicated to Carmel by a
developer; and (2) shall not apply to the addition of a turning lane, which may be required by the
City of Carmel with respect to a new development or new construction.
no R/W increases for SW Clay,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
414 10/7/2008 Pat Rice Thorough Plan Westfield Blvd. is shown as an Urban Arterial. This should be changed south of 116th when it
changes from Rangeline Road to Westfield Blvd. Not sure what category it fall under until 99th
St. when it become a Secondary Parkway.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
415 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 70 On-Street Bicycle Lane: In 2006, it was stated that serious bicyclists would rather ride in the
street than use bike lanes, because they don't feel safe. Can changes be made to remedy that?
Otherwise, the lanes just take up space and add expense.
no change, 9/30/2008
416 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 73 Bicycle & Pedestrian Classification Table: The description under "Off-Street Trail, Right of Way"
matches the Draft B language, but not the current language on page 72.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
33 10/28/2008
417 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 74 The map is on page 75; not 71. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
418 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan Bike/Ped Map Confusing. Is Illinois to get path or lane?
419 9/29/2008 CWIC2 Bike/Ped Map The map identifies an “Enhanced Sidewalk,” but where is the descriptor of what that is?
420 8/26/2008 Chamber The Chamber supports the inclusion of the encouragement of transit nodes in new
neighborhoods.
no change, 9/30/2008
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
421 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 84 Current Overlay Zones (Michigan Rd, 116th St., US 31, etc.) should be included and/or
referenced in the Comp. Plan.
note added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
422
423 8/26/2008 Chamber 86 Keystone: does this need section to be updated due to recent engineering and construction? no change, 10/14/2008
424 9/5/2008 Tim DeFrench 86 Keystone: The third bullet under the Design Goals should also state protection of the established
neighborhoods on the west side of Keystone. "Roughly" 98th to just south of 116th 126th to
smokey row.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
425 9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison 86 Keystone, Design Guidelines: Protect residential neighborhoods on the east side of Keystone
from conflicting land use encroachment -- Question??? Why not protect the ones on the west
side as well? Same goes for the softening of effects of commercial development for residential
neighborhood for the residential neighborhoods on the east side of Keystone -- Question????
Why not protect the residential neighborhood on the west side of Keystone. Should not
neighborhoods on bordering the west side of Keystone be added to this section??
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
426 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 86 Design Guidelines-This Comp Plan Revision frequently refers to the need to protect and buffer
residential neighborhoods from commercial development; while at the same time, it encourages
putting more such land uses next to established residential neighborhoods.
no change, 10/14/2008
427 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 86 Design Guidelines-Adequate buffering is questionably possible. A busy 4 lane road is not a
buffer, but is a problem in itself.
no change, 10/14/2008
428 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 86 Design Guidelines-The last bullet statement seems to conflict with the state on page 77 that says
high density is not encouraged for the sake of establishing a transit system.
no change, 10/14/2008
429
430 US 31 GENERAL
431 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88 While it is important that we discuss this area at length in this meeting, I recommend that the
heavy lifting for this corridor be done by the US 31 Committee and make a recommendation back
to the Plan Commission.
432 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88 Should we acknowledge the change in this corridor is not only limited access elevated
interchanges but also helicopter traffic, and the addition of truck traffic from Keystone? This
diversion of truck traffic from Keystone was done because Keystone was determined to be a
residential corridor and US 31 a heavy commercial corridor.
433 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88 Extend Illinois Street From 116th St to 106th Street. This extension is critical to relieve the traffic
from Spring Mill prior to US 31 becoming limited access. This needs to happen prior to 2011.
Also, change Illinois Street to Spring Mill Rd. as the transition from intense office corridor to low
density residential areas to the west.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
PART 5: CRITICAL CORRIDORS & SUBAREAS
KEYSTONE PARKWAY CORRIDOR
US 31 CORRIDOR
34 10/28/2008
434 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88 Design Guidelines, 3rd bullet: Transition the scale and mass of structures between US 31 and
Spring Mill to minimize impact to residential development to the west.
no change, 10/14/2008
435 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88 Design Guidelines, 4th bullet: Require high quality, urban office architecture and campus design
between Spring Mill Rd and Pennsylvania St. Office buildings should be required to be between 4
-10 stories between Pennsylvania and Illinois and 2-4 stories between Illinois St and Spring Mill
Rd. We should encourage the creation of a “sense of place” for people on the west side of
Meridian to live, work, shop and play.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
436 8/26/2008 Chamber 88 Design Guidelines, 5th bullet: A definition of corporate “branding” architecture is needed. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
437 9/9/2008 Gerry Golden 88 Design Guidelines, 8th bullet: Concerning "Prepare for mass transit line", this is scary as it was
origianlly planned for the Keystone Ave corridor. You are already changing Meridian corridor to
handle the truck traffic from revised Keystone corridor. Please do not overwhelm the Illinois St
corridor.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
438 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88 Design Guidelines, 9th bullet: Respect transition and buffering adjacent to existing subdivisions.
Take out AGREEMENTS. There are not any buffering agreements.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
439 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 88 Design Guidelines: Add, "lighting should be designed to not trespass into residential areas" (as
for Home Place, page 100).
no change, 10/14/2008
440 8/26/2008 Chamber 89 US 31: Map – should mixed use be indicated? Retail nodes? What is Transition-Sensitive
Residential?
no change, 10/14/2008
441 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 89 Why is path only on the east side? (Keystone has paths on both sides.) no change, 10/14/2008
442 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 89 "Preserve/Install Tree Canopy" is only shown for one tiny area, way north. Surely there are more
places. Trees should be installed along Illinois St. and along Spring Mill Rd. as a buffer.
no change, 10/14/2008
443 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 89 I think it is good that the boundaries for the Meridian Corridor extend west of spring mill no change, 10/14/2008
444 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 89 Why are we treating the east side of US 31 different than the west side of US 31? Shouldn’t the
boundary extend east of Pennsylvania?
no change, 10/14/2008
445
446 9/6/2008 Chad Scott 88 US 31: I do not want Illinois street expansion by my neighborhood at 106th street through 111th
Street
no change, 10/14/2008
447 9/9/2008 Hart 89 Illinois Street from 106th to 111th Streets will abut the east side of my neighborhood, Spring Mill
Place. Many residents of this subdiision attended nearly two years' of meetings on this topic at
City Hall, and reached agreement with the City that was recorded as a Resolution that is
inconsistent with the current rendering of Illinois Street for this segment. Please refer to the
Resolution rather than discarding those years of work.
no change, 10/14/2008
448 9/9/2008 Gerry Golden 88 I remain opposed to the Meridan corridor/Illinois St collector as it is a strong financially rewarding
project for Carmel and the major corporate developers while adversely impacting the few original
homeowners. We dramatically lose our home appreciation while the adjecent land owners and
developers and the city of Carmel have huge financial gains. There should be financial
consideration to these original homeowners. There should be sufficient $ available to help these
homeowners.
no change, 10/14/2008
449
450 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 88 US 31: reconfirm Spring Mill as a residential corridor w/Illinois as a boundary and the importance
of a compact US 31 corridor with sufficient mass to facilitate reaching other goals such as future
transit.
no change, 10/14/2008
ILLINOIS CORRIDOR - ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT
SPRING MILL CORRIDOR, ILLINOIS CORRIDOR - LAND USE
35 10/28/2008
451 8/21/2008 Barbara Layton 88 US 31: no Commercial West of Illinois, Pittman farm can be developed residentially
452 9/30/2008 James Browning 89 US 31: I am interested in the proposed use for the east side of 116th Street and Springmill Road.
I believe it would be most useful if the plan allowed for commercial office uses, multi family uses
as well as a controlled amount of retail uses. This would include higher densities which are
consistent with current urban land planning techniques being implemented in our community. I
believe the residents of West Clay would benefit from the services and the overall community
would benefit from the growth along the Meridian corridor.
453 9/30/2008 Brent Claymon 89 I live in SW Clay Township and would like to offer my perspective on future of development in the
116th and Spring Mill area. There is a significant need for amenities, restaurants, retail stores,
etc. focused toward the West side of Carmel. Clarian Hospital is a very nice facility, but clearly in
need of complementary development. As things change with US 31 becoming limited access,
one would think this makes incorporating new development even more critical. Every world class
city has pockets of areas which offer diverse and unique destinations. It seems glaring that West
Carmel does not really have that (except for residential developments). A commercial
development would also grow the tax base for Carmel, which I have to believe is important in
light of challenging times. I would be strongly in favor of a creative mixed use world class
development in this area.
454 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 89 Pls change the area denoted as Transition Sensitive Residential from 111th St on the south to
Spring Lake Estates on the north to Employment Corridor – nobody believes it is good planning
to go from 6-10 story buildings to residential.
455 9/26/2008 Ivan Barrett 89 I currently work in the high end residential home building and development market. In the
marketing and sales of our high end subdivisions on the West side of Carmel I am continually
asked about the nearest retail services/convenience area(s) on the West side of Carmel. Many
buyers who are looking to move into Carmel from other parts of the country have expectations
that there would be commercial conveniences in close proximity to their residences. They are
often discouraged at the lack of diversity and uses west of Meridian. It is for that reason that I
encourage you to plan for a special area West of Meridian that would include such services as
offices, retail uses including grocery options, hospitality, medical, etc. It is apparent to me that the
best place to create such a node would be in the area of 116th and US31, West to Spring Mill
Rd. Housing is not an appropriate or best use for this area.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
36 10/28/2008
456 9/26/2008 Irina Powers 89 Please express my strong opposition to housing developments included in the Comprehensive
Plan update along the Meridian - Springmill corridor. West Carmel is grossly lacking in
commercial mixed use developments. More housing does not benefit residents of the west side.
A commercial mixed use development such as restaurants, shops, etc. would be the ideal choice
for this side of town. My family and I must travel to the north side of 146th Street or 421 to eat,
shop, etc. Commercial uses for the area would provide the greatest benefit to residents of
western Carmel.
457 9/26/2008 Jack & Kathy Gordon 89 We are homeowners on the west side of Carmel, and we would love to see some further
commercial development on our side of town. This side of town is clearly void of the amenities
like gas stations, restaurants and other conveniences. The obvious choices are the properties
on the northeast and southeast corners of Springmill Road and 116th St. That is a perfect
location for commercial development as it backs up to mid-size office buildings and a large
hospital and is a crossroads for residents travelling both east/west and north/south. I hope that
Carmel will have some foresight rather than looking into the past when making decision about the
future of this area.
458 9/26/2008 Randy Yust 89 The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois should be rezoned Employment Node for many
reasons. Clarian North has a helipad. The BZA recently declined to approve St. V Heart Center’s
helipad b/c the “noise emanating from the proposed use may awaken adjacent residents.” Similar
distances between helipad and residential would exist if this land were to be developed as
residential properties. The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois should be
rezoned Employment Node b/c the flight plan for the helicopters that land at Clarian North.
Although the primary flight plan uses the 31 corridor, inclement weather often alters flight plans,
causing the helicopters to cross over the land between Spring Mill and Illinois. Why would we put
residential housing in an area where a medical helicopter would fly over?
459 Residential zoning of the vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois is not the public’s best
interest. Suburban residential properties, located near a helipad and next to a busy regional
medical center, would not be able to return high value. Best use would be commercial, w/ access
onto Spring Mill prohibited. Entry/exit onto property should only be allowed off of Illinois.
US 31 will become a limited access highway w/ 116th St being a major intersection. Not only will
there be significant traffic in this area there will be significant noise w/ all the normal truck traffic
on US 31 but the added truck traffic has been relocated from Keystone. In addition, Illinois St. is
becoming a major road to move local traffic. This will increase significantly when US 31 becomes
limited access. It is important to finish the last leg of Illinois St. down to 106th St prior to
construction commencement on US 31 in 2011. It is inconceivable that you would have
residential use in such a corridor. It is poor planning and an irresponsible use of such prime land
to maximize our tax base.
460 Commercial development on vacant properties along Illinois St should be encouraged. As the city
can see complete buildout w/in 10 years, NAV will flatten. We should take every opportunity to
encourage commercial development in this area to keep property taxes low for residents.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
37 10/28/2008
461 9/26/2008 Rob & Anne Kelton 89 I am writing to you regarding the property from Meridian St. to Springmill Rd., from 111th St. to
116th St. After reviewing the land use map of the Carmel Comprehensive Plan, we strongly urge
you to make the property all commercial. It seems unrealistic, inappropriate and absurd that any
of that property would be anything but COMMERCIAL.
As a registerd nurse in Indiana, I can't imagine not using that property for a first class
development that the patients and hospital staff can walk to without crossing Meridian St. With
that area being easily accessible to Meridian St. in a high traffic area and conducive to attracting
business, it certainly seems that having businesses on that property would be beneficial to
everyone in the city. It would represent good fiscal planning for the city of Carmel and help grow
the tax base.
462 There is not a shortage of homes in the area. The city could use more money to help pay for all of
the improvements that have been made, such as athletic centers and theatres. If we remember
correctly, there were an awful lot of people who were not happy about the Monon trail be
extended through their backyards, but the city decided to put it through for the greater good of the
majority and to improve the appeal of the city. To not apply the same thinking to other
development issues seems nothing less than bias and corrupt.
Given today's economy with $700 billion bailouts, we need revenue for our city. What we don't
need is more homes.
463 9/26/2008 Peter Powers 89 I would like to express my support for the inclusion of a commercial mixed use project along the
Springmill corridor for the Comprehensive Plan Update. As a resident and business owner in
west Carmel I feel there is a lack of viable commercial development and places to go on this side
of town. A mixed use project would be the best use of the corridor and I do not feel that housing
is compatible with the surrounding area.
464 9/26/2008 Bob McKinney 89 As a landowner in western clay township, custom builder and owner of Weichert Real Estate
Agency, I want to strongly encourage the leaders of the City of Carmel to plan western clay
township in a manner that is beneficial to the city as a whole. I am very concerned that west clay
be treated in a manner that is different than the rest of Carmel and in a manner that is detrimental
not only to the whole but to those of us who have made significant investments on the west side
of Carmel. It is my hope that we would encourage strong commercial uses on the west side of
meridian, that a development is created on the west side of meridian that would serve the people
who live on the west side and those who are employed on the west side. I know it is very
discouraging to the homeowners that I talk to, the business owners that I talk to and the potential
high end customers that we deal with who are required to jump in their car and drive far
distances for minor conveniences.
465 We need to create a hub in the area of 116th Street and Spring Mill Rd for a tremendous
development that properly utilizes the precious and dwindling land resources we have left. I
envision an area that contains offices both professional and medical, hospitality w hotels and
restaurants. I would be hopeful that amenities like walking trails, water features, fire pits, sand
volleyball courts and pocket parks could be created to compete w such places as silicon valley,
Boston’s technology corridor, Denver and any other great place where creative and successful
people are attracted to. Please do not allow for the degradation of our tax base by requiring
housing to go into areas where housing will fail and a use which further encourages the need for
the construction of more schools and higher taxes.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
38 10/28/2008
466 9/26/2008 John Levinsohn 89 As a resident of Western Clay Township, I am writing you today in reference to the C3
Comprehensive Plan that is currently under consideration and specifically about the underutilized
property surrounding the intersection of 116th Street and Springmill Road. The immediate area
has evolved into a first class commercial corridor that contains immense employment
opportunities as well as substantial revenue for the City. It is my hope that we can further enrich
this area by providing additional commercial assets of the same stature and supplementing those
assets with services that the population, both day time and full time, may enjoy.
467 While I know there is a vocal minority that opposes the type of planning that should be applied to
this area; the idea that Springmill Road is some sort of demarcation that needs to be buffered
hinders the power of sound planning for the highest and best use of those properties and
subsequently the City as a whole. Given what has been accomplished by the City of Carmel in
recent years I expect that those properties will represent planning and development worthy of
national recognition. I appreciate the efforts you all put forth to ensure that the City and its
residents continue to prosper. Thank you for your time.
468 9/29/2008 RJ Rudolph 89 As you are aware our company Resource Commercial Real Estate is the agent for the sale of the
Conseco 48.62 acres on the southwest corner of 116th and Spring Mill Road. Over the
past year and a half much of the interest we have received on the site from potential buyers is for
higher density residential and assisted living and some from retail support.
469 Now that Keystone Avenue has been designated as the residential corridor and Meridian Street
is planned to be a limited access highway and commercial and with the new residential
development over the past several years on the west side of Meridian Street, there is increased
demand for business services and amenities on the west side of Meridian Street at 116th for
convenience of people living and working in the area. Many of the buyers / developers
that have shown interest in the Conseco ground either for assisted living and higher density
residential are attracted to the site because of it’s proximity to The Clarian North Medical Center,
The Indiana Heart Hospital and St. Vincent’s North Hospital that would also increase the demand
for services on the west side of Meridian Street.
470 With Carmel’s recent roadway and infrastructure up grades in the area, the existing office parks
and planned office building projects and the addition of a major medical facility it makes sense to
have higher density residential mixed with retail support as a buffer to single family residential
further west of the site. If the land owners in the direct vicinity including Clarian North,
Fidelity Office Park, Conseco and Pittman Properties jointly planned developments carefully with
all land owners and residents in mind it could be a tremendous asset to Carmel residents.
The general economy, cost of living and the cost of fuel are causing people to take a very hard
look at where they live and shop as it relates to where they work. Having a wider variety of
residential developments and support services west of Meridian at 116th would be a true benefit
to the entire area.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
39 10/28/2008
471 9/29/2008 Tom Osborne 89 My family and I have been a resident of west Carmel for 17 years, 13 of which I resided at 130th
and Spring Mill Road. I’m very familiar with the traffic patterns and needs of the area. My family
and I moved to west Carmel when there were only a few subdivisions west of Meridian Street.
We have seen positive growth in the area that was well planned, but there is one thing that has
been lacking for the residents and that is good commercial and retail support and amenities west
of US 31. As Meridian Street has evolved from lightly traveled highway to a soon to be limited
access freeway, it has become much more difficult and dangerous to travel across it.
472 The intersection at 116th and Spring Mill provides Carmel the opportunity to allow something
uniquely special to be developed there due to the large amount of land that exists in an area that
is mostly developed. With the advent of quality mixed use developments we have seen here and
though out progressive communities around the country, and the benefits they provide their
surrounding communities, it would only make sense that the area around 116th and Spring Mill
be planned to provide the same benefits. Mixed use projects that include higher density
residential and support retail and office are the perfect buffer between the single family
residences to the west and the offices, hospital and highway to the east. In the age of where
people are wanting and needing to drive less, allowing mixed use developments to take place at
116th and Spring Mill makes more sense today then ever.
473 9/29/2008 Michael Puckett 89 SePRO Corporation is one of many businesses occupying the Fidelity Plaza office park located
on the Southeast corner of Meridian and 116th Street. As both an occupant and a building owner
in the office park, we have been significantly impacted in a negative manner as a result of the
Illinois Street and 116th Street modifications that have occurred over the last several years.
Similar to other buildings in Fidelity Plaza, the occupancy of our office building has declined
significantly in recent years and interest in available space has waned. While we recognize that
several factors play into this trend, feedback from both existing and potential tenants consistently
includes two issues: 1) difficulty in accessing our park due to the requirement to enter from Illinois
Street on the west side of the property/lack of access through Fidelity Plaza’s main entrance on
116th Street and 2) lack of amenities in the adjoining areas including restaurants, dry cleaners,
etc. Currently, everyone doing business on the west side of Meridian Street is required, at a
minimum, to drive east to Pennsylvania Street to reach any significant retail/convenience
shopping area.
474 After taking time to review the proposed Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan, we have
noted that the property just west of Fidelity Plaza, which would include the property just north of
111th Street, west of Illinois Street, south of 116th Street and East of Spring Mill Road, is to be
zoned residential. From our perspective, it would be best if this property was zoned as either a
Community Vitality Node or a Regional Vitality Node. While some high-density housing might be
successful in this area, we do not believe zoning the entire area residential will be the best use of
this land as it relates to the surrounding communities, including the businesses in the area. As a
building owner in the area, we would like to see the area just West of Meridian Street between
111th Street and 116th Street become a strong business community; however, this area is being
placed at a disadvantage to areas east of Meridian Street based on the currently planned zoning
requirements.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
40 10/28/2008
475 We request that you reconsider the zoning plans for the above referenced area between Illinois
Street and Spring Mill Road and zone this area as either Community Vitality Node or Regional
Vitality Node. This zoning will allow for much needed commercial development in the area.
476 9/29/2008 John Moorin 89 I would like to give you my comments regarding the use of space in the comprehensive plan. My
name is John Moorin and I live in Windemere at the corner of 106th and Towne. I recently sold
my company Wabash Medical Company. My business was located in Marion County. This is the
3rd business I have sold in my 18 years as an Indiana resident. None of these businesses have
ever been located in Hamilton County. I would very much like to
have the opportunity to do so at some point in my career. It would allow me to be closer to my
home and family and Hamilton County is a wonderful place to live.
477 Unfortunately there really is no good commercial park that I know of around. We need one that
will attract business to locate and grow. We compete on a regional and national level for our
employees.and they look for a more modern environment than what this county currently offers.
Employees today want to be able to have convenient retail next to them. They want to be able to
eat and shop next to where they are. They want places to with walking trails, bike paths and other
outdoor activities. These types of things can lure the best and brightest to us. Being close to
residential is a plus because people wouldn't have to commute nearly as far and we can limit
sprawl.
478 I have heard that people don't want commercial uses in that area. We already have that with
Clarian and we should leverage that to our advantage. It would be a great technology and Life
science corridor. Businesses would seek this place as a home in which they wanted to stay. The
office park around it is struggling. If this were developed with creativity and energy then that park
would reap the benefit as well.
479 This would increase home and land values, create terrific work space and be something the
community could be proud to claim. The commercial development on Michigan road has been
so plain. Large parking lots and big box stores. This does not promote anything that we should
want in at 116th and Springmill. Let's not waste this opportunity but maximize what it can do for
the community. We should be thinking about increasing the tax base to
support the performing arts center and the Monon center. Those are nice amenities and have set
a high standard. Please keep your standards high for all of us citizens.
480 10/15/2008 Andy Marsh
I am a homeowner is Spring Mill Place Subdivision just south of 111th on the east side of Spring
Mill Road. We purchased our home 5 years and planned to raise our two small children at the
back of a cul-de-sac with a heavily wooded backyard. The mere thought of a busy road being
located just on the other side of our property line with the potential for 6-10 story office buildings
makes us very uneasy. One of the reasons were purchased this home and piece of property it is
located on was the seclusion and peacefullness that is hard to find in a neighborhood in Carmel.
We live on nearly 2 acres and reguarly have deer, rabbits, and other wildlife in our back woods
and yard and the thought of losing them to another roadway and commercial office buildings is a
shame. While we understand the birms and trees are planned to seperate our backyards from
the Illinois street expansion, having this in our backyard will create noise and decrease our
property values which is unfair.
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
41 10/28/2008
481 On a second note, I would like to express my desire to retain the orange color designation
(residential) for the parcel of land just north of our subdivision located between 111th and 116th
street just east of springmill road. On Sept 23, 2008, it was agreed upon to leave this area as
residential and move on to other areas of concern. To our surprise, on Oct 14th meeting, this
same area was discussed again, while not on the agenda for that evening, and some plan
commission members asked that this area be changed to pink. This action defeats the purpose
of deciding to do one thing and then changing to another. This process is unfair and a complete
waste of time for community members to show up if previous decisions are cast away and new
agendas delivered.
482 10/15/2008 Ron Houck
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study
area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern
border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to
discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed
at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of
that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th
meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a second bite at the apple.
This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each
meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in
attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were
finalized at the previous meeting.
483
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September
23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a
project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan
Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely
prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more
meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents.
484 1015/2008 R. Kevin Williams
I agree with Ron Houck. In addition, I should bring to your attention, that over 20 years ago, Dr.
Pittman attempted to get all this acreage re-zoned commercial at that time. This was not long
after we built and purchased our house. At the time, this re-zoning did not agree with the
comprehensive plan. They attempted to use the fact he received a slight variance for one parcel,
to act as precedent for re-zoning the whole section of land. I personally hired Ice Miller at that
time to fight this, then was joined by other residents. At that time, the planning commission was
frankly overwhelmingly in favor of this change. However, in my opinion, when they found out they
might be in for an extended legal battle, apparently they re-considered, and decided to shelve it.
Shortly thereafter, when Dr. Pittman and Jim Nelson again tried to force the issue, a concerned
group of residents here gathered together and successfully defeated the proposal.
42 10/28/2008
485 Dr. Pittman decided to (for a time) turn that property into a pig farm, as an attempted slap in the
face to the residents. At the time, Browning called me at my office several times, trying to get me
to convince folks to settle, because the smell was directed towards his development. However,
as one of my neighbors who grew up on a farm said... "the smell doesn't bother me, to me it
smells like money!" Eventually that pig farm went away. I am sure he will threaten something like
that again.
486 Nothing has changed. As a matter of fact, there is MORE residential in this area that would be
affected at this time. I am sure this issue would be fought even harder this go around. There are
parties that are still attempting to surround our neighborhood with commercial development. This
was not what we expected when we purchased our houses, nor improved them over the years. I
am sure this would be an extended and messy battle that would make the annexation look like a
picnic.
487 10/15/2008 Linda Oldiges
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study
area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern
border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to
discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed
at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of
that meeting the process was to move on to Section 5. I did not attend the Oct. 14th meeting but
was upset to hear that this previous area was revisited without warning. I don't understand how
all of you could consider making this a special study area whereas commercial use could be
considered. At the last meeting we were told that our neighborhood fit the description of yellow
on your maps. How could you entertain putting a commercial area next to a low density
subdivision. In addition we have million dollar estate homes across the street, which should be
deemed green on the map. This study does not make sense to me and sounds like a big waste
of tax payers money. I am starting to lose faith in your whole process.
488
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September
23rd meeting. I understand that some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th
meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan
Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Why then would you make this a special
study area now. It seems that this action merely prolongs the process and involves our
subdivision in more meetings. Are you merely trying to wear us down? What's going on here??
489 10/15/2008 Gerry Golden As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision since 1981, I am opposed to the creation of a
special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to
the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely
devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was
discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the
conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections.
490 However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to
take a second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and
expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda
and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend
thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
43 10/28/2008
491 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September
23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a
project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan
Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely
prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more
meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents.
492 10/16/2008 Michael Diehr I live at 10966 Springmill Lane in Carmel just south of the Parcel of land by our subdivision (111th
- 116th St on the east side of Springmill Road). This is the parcel affectionately known as the
Pittman pig farm. I do not want this parcel of land (the Ptiman Pig farm) to be changed from it's
residential status to a special study area. This would have a adverse affect on my property value
and change the quality of life in our neighborhood. I oppose this change.
493 10/16/2008 CPT David Gardiner
I am a resident of Spring Mill Place subdivision. I have been unable to attend the recent planning
meetings due to the fact that I am currently serving overseas on active duty for the military.
494 I have recently learned, from other similarly concerned residents, that the commission is
considering creating a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road
north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. I am very much opposed to
this! This area has many families living across the street on 111th and Springmill streets. It is not
appropriate for this land to be turned to commercial use and the large increase in traffic and light
pollution.
495 Another office park does not fit the character of the area nor the vision of its resident's who
believe that the best use for the land is for residential or continued agricultural purposes.
496 My understanding is that the meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the
Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and a
decision was made to leave it designated as residential - as it should be.
497 However, at the October 14th meeting this same issue was raised again by those wishing to take
a second bite at the apple. It seems to me this issue was settled at the previous meeting. The
fact that it was allowed to be reconsidered w/out advance notice to interested parties is a great
disservice to interested residents like myself who have been told this issue has been resolved at
a previous meeting.
498 This area should remain designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting.
Caving in to special interests and creating a special study area merely prolongs the process in
the hopes that local residents will weary of the bureaucracy and endless meetings and eventually
give in.
499 It is my hope that you do your best to help prevent this area from becoming yet another office
park.
500 10/16/2008 Carolyn Scott As a resident of Springmill Place, I would ask that the designation of the parcel of north of our
subdivision retain orange color. We would like to preserve the beauty and character of our
neighborhood. Commercial buildings would destroy this!
44 10/28/2008
501 10/16/2008 Lou Jenkins Please accept my request to retain the color mapping of orange from the possible change to
pink. As I understand the proposal, this would allow Dr.Pittman to convert zoning from residential
to commercial. This is clearly not the understanding of the home owners in Spring Mill Place that
the property would be developed commercially. If you would pass my request to stay with the
orange mapping, I would appreciate your help.
502 10/16/2008 Dan & Linda Oldiges
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study
area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern
border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to
discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed
at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of
that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th
meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a second bite at the apple.
This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each
meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in
attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were
finalized at the previous meeting.
503 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September
23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a
project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan
Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely
prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more
meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents.
504 10/19/2008 Suzanne Glesing My name is Suzanne Glesing, and I am a resident in the Spring Mill Place subdivision. As a
resident, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side
of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates.
505 I realize that there was recently a meeting which took place on September 23rd that was solely
devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was
discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the
conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections.
506 It is also my understanding that on October 14th another meeting was held and the previous
conclusion from the September meeting was reversed. This is a disservice to your process and
especially a disservice to those who took the time to attend the FIRST meeting. Why take the
time, if simply another meeting will be held less that one month later and have all of previous
discussions revisited and CHANGED? Especially when it was not even on the agenda and all of
the same people are not in attendance.
507 Having been made aware of the results of the September meeting, I felt no need to attend the
October meeting because a decision had already been made. Apparently I was wrong. Even
though these issues were finalized at the previous meeting - they were revisited without the same
people who had previously taken the time to be present. This is absolutely unfair and seemingly
unethical. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the
September 23rd meeting.
45 10/28/2008
508
As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land
between 111th and 116th Streets is ONCE AGAIN going to be presented to the Plan Commission
and it's merits considered at that time. WHY?! This has already been addressed, and finalized in
September. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves
the residents of my subdivision in yet MORE MEETINGS, a strategy merely designed to wear
down my neighbors and myself. We all have busy lives involving our children, our families, our
jobs and whatever else. Taking the time to attend YET ANOTHER meeting - feel as if our
presence is worthwhile - only to find out that it will once again be a WASTE OF TIME leaves all of
us more than disappointed in the system that we are expected to count on.
509 I WILL be at the next meeting - as will many other members of my neighborhood. Hopefully the
effort will result in an improvement of communication and resolve.
510 10/19/2008 Valerie Eickmeier As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study
area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern
border of Spring Lakes Estates. The correct process is to leave the area designated as
residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting!
511 Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents
in our subdivision in yet more meetings.This is clearly a strategy merely designed to wear down
the residents of our neighborhood. The Carmel Plan Commission should do the right thing for the
members of this residential community!
512 10/20/2008 Jacqueline Baques I agree with Valerie's statements. If the decision was already made at the prior meeting to leave
the area designated as residential, there was no need to revisit that topic at the next meeting.
Our neighborhood's consensus is that we ALL would like to see that area left at its former
designation as residential.
513 10/19/2008 Dan Belcher I am a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision and would like to state my opposition to the
creation of a special study area for the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th
Street to 116th Street. The area now being considered for special study was discussed on
September 23 and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. I am in favor of
leaving this area designated as residential, and considering future project proposals at the time
they are presented to the Plan Commission. Creating a special study area is unnecessary and
only prolongs the process to the advantage of developers who ultimately want this area changed
from residential to commercial. This change would clearly be to the detriment of the homeowners
in our subdivision. Please strongly consider this request to maintain this area designated as
residential.
514 10/20/2008 Janice Byrne As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study
area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern
border of Spring Lakes Estates. The correct process is to leave the area designated as
residential, as agreed to
at the September 23rd meeting!
515 Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents
in our subdivision in yet more meetings. This is clearly a strategy merely designed to wear down
the residents of our neighborhood. The Carmel Plan Commission should do the right thing for the
members of this residential community!
46 10/28/2008
516 10/20/2008 Alexis Schwartz As a new resident of the Spring Mill Place neighborhood, I am in complete consensus with the
rest of my neighbors that the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the
southern border of Spring Lakes Estates should be left as residential as agreed to in the
September 23rd meeting. Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely
affect the value of our homes in Spring Mill Place, but it would also increase the traffic through
our subdivision as well as throughout the surrounding thoroughfares in the area. Additionally,
bringing another commercial development so close to our neighborhood increases the safety
risks to our children because of the amount of both automotive and foot traffic that a commercial
development would bring.
517 Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one
of the primary reasons we bought our home. A commercial development at 111th and Spring Mill
changes the entire make up of the area. We do not appreciate the potential for more commercial
so close to our homes any more than the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill would.Please
forward these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the Carmel Plan Commission, so that
he and the rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our neighborhood and the
greater Spring Mill area.
518 10/20/2008 John and Tammy
Lieberman
My wife and I are homeowners in the Spring Mill Place subdivision (10989 Spring Mill Lane)
which subdivision is located due south of the Pittman Parcel. I am the principal real estate broker
in Lieberman and Associates, Inc. and have been a licensed real estate broker for 23 years. I
have been involved in several feasibility studies of many residential and commercial properties
over many years as my father was a real estate developer. Obviously, my wife and I and all
home owners in Spring Mill Place are concerned about our future property values.
519 I am aware that the Pittman Parcel is being considered as a potential special study area under
the Comprehensive Plan for Carmel. I am in agreement with Ron Houck (that lives in our
subdivision) per his prior statement to you. I believe the best use of the Pittman Parcel in light of
the existing residential communities surrounding that parcel is for the Pittman Parcel to be
residential.
520 I realize that no specific project/development proposal is being reviewed right now by the Carmel
Planning Commission for development of the property. But given the nice Williams Mill
subdivision (on the west side of Spring Mill Road across from the Pitman Parcel), I believe that
another well planned development like Williams Mill would fit well into the residential design and
flavor of our existing two subdivisions (Williams Mill and Spring Mill Place.)
521 I am therefore opposed to changing the property to a Special Study Area. Thank you for giving
consideration to my thoughts as well as to all of the other home owners in the Spring Mill Place
subdivision.
522 10/20/2008 Rick Pearson I'm also a resident of Spring Mill Place and fully agree with those I'm referencing below. In
addition please include my position to those who have written before me.
47 10/28/2008
523
Those proposing and supporting this special study are using this as a tactic to buy time by
drawing those opposed into battle of attrition. We have jobs, families, and other responsibilities
and should not have to continually make a case against an obstinate desire to commercially
develop a piece of property that has already been addressed. The safety of our children, the
value of our homes, and the overall community that exists today should not be overlooked for
someone else's profit. This neighborhood is well established and has a strong desire to maintain
the community it has created. I believe it is on record by the very developer pushing this issue,
that the property being discussed cannot be developed residentially because there is no value in
homes constructed next to an office building. How can one argue homes will have a lower value
and cannot be built and then insist on putting an office next to our homes and pretend it will have
no impact our community? This is ludicrous.
524 I implore you to realize and honor what we as a community have work so hard to create and
preserve over the years. Please re-establish the property being referenced back to residential.
525 10/20/2008 Lani & Greg
Thompson I am in complete consensus with my neighbors who've written previously to express their opinion
that the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of
Spring Lakes Estates should be left as residential as agreed to in the September 23rd meeting.
526
Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely affect the value of our homes
in Spring Mill Place, but it would also increase the traffic through our subdivision as well as
throughout the surrounding thoroughfares in the area. Additionally, bringing another commercial
development so close to our neighborhood increases the safety risks to our children because of
the amount of both automotive and foot traffic that a commercial development would bring.
527 Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one
of the primary reasons we bought our home. A commercial development at 111th and Spring Mill
changes the entire make up of the area. We do not appreciate the potential for more commercial
so close to our homes any more than the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill would. Please
forward these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the Carmel Plan Commission, so that
he and the rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our neighborhood and the
greater Spring Mill area.
528 10/20/2008 Gary and Denise
Lewis
As residents of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, we are opposed to the creation of a special
study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th St. to the
southern border of Spring Lakes Estates.
529 The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area
now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to
leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on
to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was addressed
again by those wishing to try it again. This is a disservice to your process and to those who
attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on
the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those who did not
attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
48 10/28/2008
530 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September
23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a
project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan
Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely
prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in more meetings,
a strategy seemingly designed to wear down the residents. We plan on attending the October
28th meeting to monitor the progress being made on behalf of our community.
531 10/21/2008 Mike Sharp I concur with the many e-mails you have received on this topic.
532 10/21/2008 Chris & Alexis
Shwartz
We are aware that the Pittman property (east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street) is
being considered as a potential special study area under the far reaching Comprehensive Plan
for Carmel. Consistent with the vote at the September 23rd meeting, we strongly believe that the
property should remain residential, and therefore strongly oppose changing its classification to a
Special Study Area.
533 The fact that those supporting commercial development decided to bring this matter up at a
subsequent meeting following a decision to classify residential further clouds our belief in a fair
and appropriate process. This approach was unfair to us that believed this issue was decided at
a previous meeting.
534
Developing this land for commercial use will: 1. Adversely affect the value of our homes in Spring
Mill Place as well as the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill Road
2. Increase traffic through our subdivision as well as those surrounding thoroughfares in our area
3. Increase the safety risks to the many children that call Spring Mill Place home with added foot
and automotive traffic
4. Potentially increase crime in our area.
Our position and consensus on this topic is unwavering.
535 10/21/2008 Rhonda & Andy
Marsh I am in complete consensus with my neighbors who've written previously to express their opinion
that the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of
Spring Lakes Estates should be left as residential as agreed to in the September 23rd meeting.
536
Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely affect the value of our homes
in Spring Mill Place, but it would also increase the traffic through our subdivision as well as
throughout the surrounding thoroughfares in the area. Additionally, bringing another commercial
development so close to our neighborhood increases the safety risks to our children because of
the amount of both automotive and foot traffic that a commercial development would bring.
537 Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one
of the primary reasons we bought our home, having 2 small children. A commercial development
at 111th and Spring Mill changes the entire make up of the area. We do not appreciate the
potential for more commercial so close to our homes any more than the $1MM+ homes that
line Spring Mill would.
49 10/28/2008
538 Our land backs up to the land that will be developed for Illinois Street, so we are also VERY
concerned with the potential height o f the buildings that will line Illinois Street. The reason we
bought this home was because it is on a 2 acre wooded lot and we love the wildlife that inhabits
the area behind our house. We (our children) will be losing the opportunity to see deer, ducks,
rabbits, squirrels, etc... out of our back windows when this project is complete. Please don't ask
us to look out our windows at 6-10 story buildings instead!!
539 Please forward these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the Carmel Plan Commission,
so that he and the rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our neighborhood and the
greater Spring Mill area.
540 10/21/2008 Bill & Brie Williams
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study
area for the land on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border
of Spring Lakes Estates. We put our home up for sale last summer and several prospective
buyers asked specifically about the potential development of the aforementioned land parcel.
The uncertainty about the future development of that property negatively impacted our ability to
sell our home. Most buyers voiced the same concerns that we ourselves have about the
negative impact such development would have on our property value in the future.
541 The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area
now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to
leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on
to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed
again by those wishing to take a second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to your process
and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues
when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance.
542 This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at
the previous meeting.
543 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September
23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a
project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan
Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely
prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more
meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents.
544 10/21/2008 Jill H. Meisenheimer
I have attended several Carmel Comp plan meetings in the past and I thought the following issue
had been decided months ago. As a resident of Williams Mills subdivision, I am opposed to the
creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road from South
of 116th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. I have heard that the meeting on
September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being
considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was left designated as
residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent
sections. I was dismayed to hear that at the October 14th meeting this same area was
revisited though it was not on the agenda and interested parties were not in attendance. This is
not fair to those people who thought these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
50 10/28/2008
545 The area should be still designated as residential (orange), as agreed to at the September 23rd
meeting.
546 I am also terrible concerned that the Comp Plan is suggesting a requirement of 6-10 story
buildings in this area. Already the traffic in our area is so clogged that I often have a tough time
getting to and from our Williams Mills home from 116th and Meridian and that doesn't even
include the impossiblity of actually waiting for the many traffic lights it can take to actually cross
Meridian at 116th Street. I plan to be at the meeting on next Tuesday.
547 10/21/2008 Richard Clement We are very concerned about the plan to revise zoning for the Pittman property north of
111th. We definitely will attend the October 28th meeting.
548 10/21/2008 Richard Vitales
As a resident of the Williams Mill subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study of
the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of
Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the
Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and
the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting,
the process was to move on to subsequent items of business. However, at the October 14th
meeting, this subject was once again revisited by those who want to reverse the decision already
made. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each
meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in
attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were
finalized at the previous meeting.
549 The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September
23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a
project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan
Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely
prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more
meetings; a strategy merely designed to wear down residents.
550 10/22/2008 David Roach My name is David Roach, and I am a resident in the Spring Mill Place subdivision.
551 I am in complete consensus with the entire neighborhood that does not want the land to the north
of 111th Street to become a commercial property and does not want this property to be a special
study area. Development of this land commercially would negatively impact our
neighborhood(traffic,theft,values,etc.).Please leave the area as residential as agreed.We do not
feel that 6-10 story buildings to the east of our neighborhood would be in our best interest.
552 We do not need any prolonging meetings wearing down the residents of this neighborhood.The
Carmel Planning Commission should make this decision as if they were living here with no
agenda.
553 10/24/2008 Barbara Layton Adrienne, we were at the meeting wherein Steve Pittman requested that his pig farm be
reclassified, and such request was denied. The revised comp plan indicates his request was
honored.
554 We OBJECT to his land being reclassified.
555 Further, the land north along Spring Mill Road owned by Clarian was zoned residential. This was
a compromise intended to satisfy the surrounding residential property owners. This too has been
reclassified.
51 10/28/2008
556 Please DO NOT reclassify either of these two properties. No commercial west of Illinois MUST
remain in effect. Thanks much. :-)
557 10/25/2008 Michael & Robertal
Mattasits
As homeowners and residents of the Williams Mill subdivision, located at 111th & Sprindmill Rd.,
we are opposed to the creation of a special study area for the parcel of land east of Springmill
and north of 111th (commonly referred to as the Pittman Pig Farm).
558 We support the current residential designation.
559 10/26/2008 Lyle Hartman
My wife Marian and I live in Williams Mill and have lived in Carmel or Clay Twp since 1972. The
Plan Commission indicated at the Sept 23rd meeting that the east side of Spring Mill North of
111th street would remain residential. However, the Oct 14th meeting indicated an intent to revisit
this decision and create a special study area. This issue appears on the agenda for Oct 28.
560 The process of revisiting agenda items that were previously agreed to creates confusion and is
unfair to those who attend meetings and leave believing that issues have been finalized. The
561 Please allow the prior decision to stand and leave this area zoned residential.
562 10/25/2008 John B. Tintera There are 3 references in C3 to LEED as follows; page 20, Objective 7.5, page 21, Objective 7.8
and page 21, Objective 7.14. Please add Energy Star and Green Globes for alternative
certification. Shown below is a link to a recent article in Scientific American covering some of the
common objections to LEED Certification.
563 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=leed-compliance-not-required&print=true
564 10/27/2008 Kathleen Hart
I attended the Sept 30 and Oct 14 meetings which addressed, among other items, the Land Use
Map for the Illinois Street expansion along our neighborhood, Spring Mill Place. I appreciate all
the hard work that your Commission is putting in on this project. However, I write to ask that you
reconsider the vote on October 14 to create a special study (pink) area for the east side of Spring
Mill Road between 111 and 116th Streets (the Pittman parcel). I may not be able to attend the
Oct 28 meeting and hope you will consider this email in lieu of my attendance. The reasons,
some of which I tried to raise during the Oct 14 meeting, are as follows:
565 1. Our neighborhood appeared at the Sept 23, 30 and Oct 14 meetings for areas that affect the
perimeter of our neighborhood. As stated previously, our neighborhood has approximately 48
homes on 1+ acres each.
566
2. On Sept 23, we were told to return on Sept 30 because the agenda was too full to reach our
area of interest. At the Sept 30 meeting, a vote was taken after discussion that our neighborhood
(east side of Spring Mill Road between 106 and 111th Streets) should be changed to "yellow" on
the land use and planning map because it qualifies for low density classification and not likely to
change any time in the foreseeable future. We thank you for this discussion and vote.
567 Also at the Sept 30 meeting, Mr. Pittman attended and advocated that his entire parcel be
changed to employment node (blue) color, making arguments about helicopters and residential
development that were not accepted. A discussion was held and vote taken, which resulted in no
color change to his parcel (which is presently residential/orange east of Spring Mill Road and
blue east of Illinois Street).
52 10/28/2008
568 3. At the Oct 14 meeting, many reps of our neighborhood as well as Mr. Pittman appeared once
more. It was confirmed on the record that even though the map colors had not changed, our
neighborhood segment was indeed now to be yellow. Mr. Pittman then took the opportunity to
ask that blue be extended to his entire parcel -- and many of his written comments repeated a
suggestion that the commercial zone be extended to the west side of Illinois all the way to Spring
Mill Road; after discussion, this was declined (I recall one basis was that a vote previously taken
and would not be revisited) and the orange color was to remain between Spring Mill Road and
Illinois Street.
569 At a later point in the Oct 14 meeting, discussion was had about the Clarian segment (north of
116th Street). It was suggested that a special study (pink) area be created. A discussion (with
many people talking over each other) was held -- in the midst of which Mr. Pittman added his
property -- and the vote taken to create a special study (pink) area -- apparently for both Clarian
and Pittman parcels.
570 4. The Clarian and Pittman parcels are very different as to what borders them and why Clarian
may qualify for amendments as to future use that Pittman should not. As I was briefly able to
raise at the Oct 14 meeting, the first vote and second discussion on the Pittman parcel should
hold firm, i.e., it stay orange. Further, that changing it now to a special study area will require our
low density neighborhood to attend countless more meetings so in the future we cannot be
foreclosed from protesting any amended use or zoning sought for the Pittman parcel.
571
5. Government works because we have good leaders who make decisions after hearing the
voices of its citizens. The Commission heard discussion on the Pittman parcel on September 30
and voted to keep it orange. Our neighborhood attendance paid off. This decision was even
used as the basis to keep the parcel as orange when Mr. Pittman asked a second time for a
change early into the October 14 meeting. By then, Mr. Pittman had authored more comments
on the subject (many long ones) and obtained comments from new supporters who didn't appear
at the meeting yet generically favored westside development -- although not specifying it required
Pittman's particular parcel to do so. If Mr. Pittman (or others) are allowed to show up eternally
and refine their arguments and support for a vote they repeatedly seek (and to the eventual
attrition of foes who relied on the prior vote when they timely gave their arguments and showed
support), the process breaks down and is entirely unreliable for all of its citizens.
572 6. Therefore, I ask that you reinstate the Sept 30 vote on the Pittman parcel upon which many
of my neighbors relied and do not allow the Pittman parcel to become part of the special study
area that is appropriate for its differently situated neighbor, Clarian.
573 SUMMARY:
574 Spring Mill Place (between 106 & 111 Streets): YELLOW
575 Pittman parcel (between 111 & 116 Streets): ORANGE
576 Clarian parcel (north of 116 to Spring Lakes subdivision): PINK
577 Thank you.
53 10/28/2008
578 10/27/2008 Ed Skarbeck
My name is Ed Skarbeck, I am a resident of Spring Mill Place Subdivision…In addition to the
email that I submitted below (on September 9, 2008), please accept this email as my input in
regards to the issues described below. As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am
opposed to the creation of a special study area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th
Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. From previous meetings and
communications, I was under the impression that this area would remain properly zoned as
residential. However, it has come to our attention that the area is being “revisited” at the meeting
tomorrow, 10/28/08. How many times are we going to have to go through this? I will attend
tomorrow’s meeting and, again, support the unanimous position of our neighborhood to strongly
oppose the re-zoning of this area. Please note, that I am in full support of the detailed emails and
communications that Ron Houck has provided you in regards to the many issues we are dealing
with in the changes proposed to our surrounding neighbors and areas.
579 10/27/2008 Chad M. Pulley I am counsel for Conseco, Inc. who owns 48 acres of undeveloped land on the southwest corner
of Springmill Rd. and 116th St (the “Parcel”). This land is one of the largest undeveloped tracts of
land along Springmill Rd. on the east side of “West Carmel” and has a unique opportunity to
significantly contribute to West Carmel’s landscape. However, in order to promote the greatest
contribution to West Carmel’s landscape, the Parcel should be included in the Special Study so
that its optimal uses can be considered in conjunction with the uses of the land along the east
side of Springmill Rd. This land can provide significant value to the Special Study by providing
580 10/27/2008 Chuck Cremens I am the authorized representative of Conseco Inc, dealing with the 48 acres at the southwest
corner of 116th and Springmill Rd. I have been following the C3 Plan meetings through our real
estate agents, Resource Commercial Real Estate and our legal counsel, Riley Bennett & Egloff,
who have attended all of the Special Committee's meetings. I have also had dicussions with
other owners in the area, in particular Steve Pittman. It is our understanding that the Committee
has recommended that there be a "Special Study" to address the Springmill Corridor. We
couldn't agree more with the proposed approach. We also think it is essential that Conseco's 48
acres be included in the "Special Study" process. It is important for its inclusion due to its
location and size. We also hope that we can bring value to the Committee through our active
paricipation in the Study process. Conseco and the Committee believably share the same
objective of maximizing the opportunity along the Springmill Corridor.
581 Thank you for your work on this important project and your consideration to include our property
in the "Special Study".
582 11/1/2008 Barbara Layton Oh dear. We have a situation here.... We were PROMISED by City Council when the Clarian
rezone was granted that residential would remain along Spring Mill Road west of Illinois Street.
Surrounding lands were specifically discussed, and we were PROMISED that, in particular, the
Pittmans would not be allowed to claim hardship/domino as a result of the Clarian rezone and
also have their land rezoned. FYI, the land to the west of Spring Mill is currently for sale at
commercial rates. Suppose that owner is also hoping for a broken promise as well?
583 The latest Comp Plan draft has Pittman's land designated as an Area for Special Study, which
when translated, is step one for a rezone. City Council PROMISED this would not be allowed to
happen. Please honor the PROMISES made and do not reclassify either the Clarion or Pittman
land. Both need to remain and be developed residentially. Thanks so much.
584 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 89 US 31: define Transition-Sensitive Residential
BUILDING HEIGHT - TRANSITION SENSITIVE RESIDENTIAL
54 10/28/2008
585 8/19/2008 Ron Houck 88 US 31: what is transition-sensitive residential? How does this work when encouraging 6-10 story
buildings in the corridor?
no change, 10/14/2008
586 8/26/2008 Chamber 88 US 31: Requiring 6-10 story buildings? In comp plan? no change, 10/14/2008
587 9/29/2008 Ron Houck 88 What is the driving force behind the need to establish a 6-10 story building height requirement
between Illinois Street and Pennsylvania Street? What is wrong with letting the market determine
the size of building as dictated by land prices and demand? This new height requirement would
have effectively precluded many of the existing high-quality buildings already located in the US
31 corridor. The requirement of 6-10 story buildings in this area produces numerous impacts that
are damaging to the existing adjacent residential areas on both sides of US 31. With the
narrowness of the corridor on the Pennsylvania Street side south of 116th Street and the
proximity of existing residential properties, it will be impractical to buffer from this size of building
from the residential areas without adversely affecting their property values.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
588 9/5/2008 Ron Houck 88 US 31: Requirement for 6-10 Story Buildngs seems to be in conflict with the statement in Design
Guidelines that addresses transition of mass and scale between US 31 & Illinois to minimize
impact to residential development. So, if the area from Illinois Street to Pennsylvania Street is
required to have 6 to 10 story buildings, how will or how can the scale and mass of structures
between US 31 and Illinois Street be transitioned when it abuts the “Transition-Sensitive
Residential” areas on the US 31 Corridor map on page 89? The area colored as “Transition-
Sensitive Residential” (blue-green are on Map #1) occupies the entire western side of Illinois
street from 103rd Street to 131st Street. It is not practically possible to transition scale and mass,
as specified in the Design Guidelines, within the confines of the corridor after allowing for
parking for a 6-10 story of building.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
589 9/5/2008 Ron Houck 88 US 31: My home is located in the Spring Mill Place subdivision (Map #1 and Map #2), which is
located between 107th and 111th Streets on the east side of Spring Mill Road in the map area
designated as “Transition-Sensitive Residential”. My address is 315 W 107th Street (red star on
map #2), which uncharacteristically for a numbered street, exists only as this cul-de-sac.
Properties along the east side of our subdivision are all large lots on cul-de-sacs and the homes
have large set backs with some near the rear of the lots.Our subdivision was originally platted in
1980, prior to the enactment of the US 31 Overlay Zone. At the time of enactment, the US 31
Overlay Zone was 600 feet on either side of US 31. Even after the US 31 Overlay Zone was put
in place the conceptual design for Illinois Street was a meandering road confined interior to the
overlay zone with double loading within the overlay zone. A few years ago the US 31 dimensions
were expanded west several hundred feet. In Map #1 above, compare the dimensions of the US
31 Overlay zone between US 31 and Pennsylvania to the size of the overlay on the west side of
US 31. In many places it is two to three times as wide.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
55 10/28/2008
590 At the time the US 31 Overlay Zone was expanded, Illinois Street was pushed to the western
boundary of the overlay, placing it directly adjacent to our residential properties. Until this
expansion of the US 31 Overlay Zone, our neighborhood had always enjoyed a comfortable
boundary abutting residentially zoned property.This re-configuration of the US 31 Overlay zone
has caused the encroachment of office buildings into what was a residentially zoned area. This
current revision to the Comprehensive Plan only further negatively impacts our area. Some
protection is certainly in order. It is impractical to consider 6 to 10 story office building abutting
residential areas. Even with the separation by Illinois Street the towering visual impact will
negatively affect property values and our quality of life. The scale and mass of 6-10 story
buildings is simply too large to not have a considerable negative impact to our neighborhood.
Next to the transition-sensitive residential areas with existing homes the building height in the
591 9/9/2008 Joseph Hile 88 corridor US 31: Was should concerned be capped with at the four language stories. regarding Illinois Street extension regarding 6-10 story
buildings?? How will this "Blend" in with homes that are adjacent to the us 31 corridor? We are
located just west of the proposed Illinois St extention and are concerned along with a number of
our neighbors? The specific area in question is between 111th and 106th west of US 31.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
592 9/9/2008 Hart 88 US 31: I strongly protest that the corridor between Meridian and Illinois Street at 106-111 Streets
is designated as a 6-10 story employment corridor that will overshadow our neighborhood.
Please remove that designation from this stretch of the corridor.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
593 9/9/2008 Ed Skarbeck 88 US 31: I live in Spring Mill Place Subdivision. In review of the draft, Section Critical Corridors and
Subareas, Part 5, Section 2, the U.S. 31 Corridor, is the discussion of the extensions/additions to
Illinois Street from 106th northbound. This stretch of Illinois (from 106th to 111th) will most
certainly have an effect on property values in our neighborhood. While we all have several
concerns and are not overly thrilled to have a four-lane parkway, we realize the inevitable.
Please allow this letter as a show of support for the detailed letter and concerns raised by Spring
Mill Place Subdivision resident Ron Houck.
Of significant concern is the “requirement for 6-10 story buildings” within that corridor. Having
visions of a parkway (that is necessary for tolerable north to south travel) as our eastern
boundary - nicely concealed by dense, mature trees, bushes and built up hills - is one thing, but
the thought of towering commercial buildings is a whole other issue. Please consider the lack of
need for cramming more offices in this area…We’ve got a wonderful and very desirable
neighborhood for western Carmel residents. I hope that the Plan Commission takes very
seriously, the impact that development in this area will have on the desirability and values of our
property. Providing necessary travel to the existing office parks/buildings along this corridor is
understandable. Cramming office space into small windows of land up against established
residential areas does not seem so necessary.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
56 10/28/2008
594 9/9/2008 Gerry Golden 88 US 31: I have been a resident of Spring Mill Place (east of Springmill Rd between 106 and 116 st)
since 1980 and have attended and sometimes spoken concerning the re- zoning of this corridor.
Concerning "Respect transition and buffering agreements with adjacent subdivisions" it was
agreed to in last meeting to have buildings no higher than 6 stories easy of our development and
that the buffer zone would consist of extra width with mounding with both deciduous and
evergreen trees.
We anticipate that these agreements will remain.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
595 9/9/2008 David Roach 88 I would like to express my concern regarding the "Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan C3-
Plan" ,US 31 Corridor, Part 5 : Critical Corridors and Subareas, specifically page 88 which
requires 6 -10 story buildings between Illinois Street & Pennsylvania Street. We all understand
these buildings will be for the owners highest & best use and will be 10 story buildings,due to the
cost of the land. Our sub-division "Spring Mill Place" would be a Transition-Sensitive Residential
area (pg. 89) right next to 10 story buildings.(location N. of 106th Street/E. of Springmill Road.).
I feel height restrictions must be set for the US 31 Corridor next to residential housing.These
heights should be set at two story maximum. We need a buffer zone. We do not want to be the
buffer zone for 10 story buildings.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
596 9/10/2008 Steven Kirsh 88 US 31: I live at 365 W. 107th Street, Carmel (which is near 106th and Springmill). Unlike many of
my neighbors, I favor (a) being annexed by Carmel and (b) having Illinois Street as a Parkway.
(Likewise, I would favor Springmill as a Parkway, but I don't think that is being contemplated at
this time.) However, I oppose the idea 6 story office buildings on the west side US 31 between
106th and 111th Streets. I believe buildings of that height would significantly deflate the value of
our homes for, at least, two reasons: (a) the tenants in the upper floors would look directly into
the backyards of the adjacent home owners, and (b) there is no way to effectively screen from
view of the residences a 6 story building.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
597 9/14/2008 Carolyn Scott 88 US 31: As a resident of the Springmill Place neighborhood, I wanted to share my disappointment
and fear over the Illinois Street expansion.
Of greatest concern, the proposed 6-10 story buildings ruining the charm and safety of our
neighborhood. Every night when I put my kids to bed, I look out their windows and admire the
beautiful view. Our tree-lined neighborhood is what drew our family to Carmel. Looking out of
those same windows and seeing 6-10story buildings, would be devastating.
I would ask that the Carmel City Council would consider keeping existing families happy, instead
of trying to lure prospective tenants by proposing such tall buildings.
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
598 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 88/89 Have fire protection and earthquake resistance been planned for the increase in 10 story bldgs? no change, 10/14/2008
57 10/28/2008
599 11/6/2008 Ron Houck 86
The graphic added to Part 5 in the US 31 Corridor section is misleading. Although it is probably designed to be
generically applied, it does not accurately represent the circumstances of our neighborhood with a 100 foot buffer.
Additionally, the buffer area that is shown west of Illinois Street shows deciduous trees taller than a two-story home.
To not have a negative impact on our neighborhood, the buffer must provide total visual screening year round. This
would mean mounding and coniferous trees. The average specimens planted are usually 6-8 foot in height. Even
with mounding, this only provides a 10-12 foot height in the buffer area. To the graphic attached here, I added a
typical line-of-sight from a home to the 10-story building in the cross-section. A view of the upper stories of high
buildings is unacceptable, if our property values are to be protected. For buildings fronting onto US 31 and near
adjacent residential areas the building height should not exceed six stories and for the 3-story and 6-story buildings
there should be a maximum height restrictions of 45 feet and 80 feet, respectively.
600 11/4/2008 Dan Oldiges 86 10 foot high buildings on Meridian Street? I live in the Spring Mill Place Subdivision and it seems to me that no one in
Carmel cares about US!!! You want to put the land north of us into commercial (North of 111th) and you want us to
wake up every morning to see a large office complex. Carmel just recently annexed us and it seems that all they want
to do is make our lives miserable. This is a neighborhood with homes not office complexes. If you are going to force
things upon our neighborhood at least contact our neighborhood association and let us know what your plans are
before you decide to have last minute meetings to change your minds. IE.....Designation of north of 111th as a "study"
area!!!!
601 Make the buildings shorter and stop having meetings to keep changing your minds when we are not there!!!
602 I realize this is not your fault and that you are just being the messenger but some one has to tell the zoning
commission to stop this nonsense.
603 11/4/2008 Gerry Golden 86 With our Spring Mill Place group pushing this concern, why can't the engineers develop a graphic that represents
OUR area? That area is between Springmill and Meridian and between 106 and 111 th streets.
604
We can't correctly respond unless we see an actual graphic with correct buffer area and type as outlined in resolution.
605 The engineers keep putting this off as they do not want the council and us to see "reality"?
606 WIth that graphic it will become obvious that even an 8, 9 or 10 story building next to Meridian across from us will be
too tall because of sight lines from homes on east side of Spring Mill Place. I am unable to attend the Wed 12th
meeting.
607 11/4/2008 Carolyn Scott 86 It is our hope that the plans for the US 31 Corridor would not include 10 story buildings. Buildings of this heighth
would ruin so much of the beauty of our neighborhood. Please RESPECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD and OUR
FAMILIES by keeping the proposed buildings to no more than the 6 stories.
608 11/7/2008 Kathleen Hart 86 I repeat my prior comments and request that the City of Carmel and Plan Commission restrict the existence and/or
height of commercial buildings in the Meridian Street Corridor and anticipated Illinois Street segment near our
neighborhood, Spring Mill Place (located between 106 and 111 Streets on Spring Mill Road) and take all other
measures to comply with the Resolution No. CC-12-17-01-02 that requires our neighborhood to have a "continuous
visual and sound buffer" from the development vis a vis coniferous, deciduous trees and variable mounding, as well
as realignment of Illinois Street right-of-way if necessary. Thank you.
609 11/7/2008 86 We are in agreement with Ron Houck (my neighbor in the Spring Mill Place subdivision) and his comments (per the
"Part 5 in the US 31 Corridor."
610 11/7/2008 Andrew Marsh 86 I agree with Ron Houck's comments below. Being at the back of a cul-de-sac and having woods behind our lot which
will face Illinois street and the buildings, we want a reasonable amount of buffer betweeen our back yard and the
road/buildings. There needs to be discussion with the homeowners as to the exact amount of buffer/trees, etc that will
be utilized. Thanks. Andy
John & Tammy Lieberman
58 10/28/2008
611 11/7/2008 Linda Oldiges 86 The graphic added to Part 5 in the US 31 Corridor section is misleading. Although it is probably designed to be
generically applied, it does not accurately represent the circumstances of our neighborhood with a 100 foot buffer.
Additionally, the buffer area that is shown west of Illinois Street shows deciduous trees taller than a two-story home.
To not have a negative impact on our neighborhood, the buffer must provide total visual screening year round. This
would mean mounding and coniferous trees. The average specimens planted are usually 6-8 foot in height. Even
with mounding, this only provides a 10-12 foot height in the buffer area. To the graphic attached here, I added a
typical line-of-sight from a home to the 10-story building in the cross-section. A view of the upper stories of high
buildings is unacceptable, if our property values are to be protected. For buildings fronting onto US 31 and near
adjacent residential areas the building height should not exceed six stories and for the 3-story and 6-story buildings
there should be a maximum height restrictions of 45 feet and 80 feet, respectively.
612 11/8/2008 Rhonda Marsh 86 I just wanted to agree with the email you received from Ron Houck regarding the potential building height of the
proposed buildings to line the new section of Illinois Street. It will pass along the back of our property. Currently we
enjoy a quiet view out of our backyard windows with the ability to view wildlife and nature daily. Please don't ruin this
view with 6-10 story buildings! The main reason we purchased this home for our family with 2 young children was our
2 acre wooded, quiet, safe lot!! We are very concerned about what these proposed changes will do to our yard, view
and property value. We are asking that the height of these buildings be limited to under 6 stories maximum! Thank
you for your consideration on this most sensitive matter!! Please forward this email to the appropriate council
members!
613 8/6/2008 Pat Rice 90 96th St: Neighborhood should be planned by following these proposed recommendations from
Parts 2 & 3: pg. 17: Objective 1.5, pg. 24: Objective 1.4, pg. 24: Objective 3.2, pg 36:
Neighborhood Service Nodes to be strategically utilized around Carmel in walking or cycling
proximity to suburban, urban and attached residential classifications.
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
614 8/6/2008 Pat Rice 90 Enhance East/West Connectivity: include statement about connecting Penn to Westfield Blvd (as
already mentioned in HomePlace section). If straight alignment over 465 were implemented,
would there be a need to connect Penn through the Monon?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
615 8/19/2008 Joy Sullivan 90 96th St: Chesterton neighborhood would like to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.
Commercial development along 96th Street should only occur one lot deep along 96th and
provide adequate buffer. Lighting and after hours traffic should be minimized when considering
type of business.
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
616 8/19/2008 Steve Pittman 90 96th St: Corridor is rapidly changing. This should be considered as plans are made for the future. Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
617 8/19/2008 Jim Palecek 90 96th St: Corridor and area have changed. 96th backs up past Wild Cherry, commercial along
96th Street, decreased quality of life. Difficult to sell, difficult to stay.
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
618 8/19/2008 Pat Rice 90 96th St Corridor Study has been referenced, but most of the assumptions made in 1999 are
outdated or no longer applicable. Please delete outdated assumptions. Please update the
information to reflect the changing nature of the area, as it no longer reflects a stable residential
neighborhood. Wash Twp Comprehensive Plan (Marion County) indicates Commercial Uses on
S sd of 96th. Commercial uses and multifamily rentals exist in the area. Duke redevelopment
(Parkwood).
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
619 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90 Description: Serves as…east/west arterial (change to corridor) no change, 10/14/2008
620 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90 Strategy, Buffer Residential Areas: delete “near Michigan Road” – too site specific no change, 10/14/2008
621 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90 Strategy, Enhance East/West Connectivity: confer with discription and maps on pp. 63-75-90-91-
100-101.
no change, 10/14/2008
96TH STREET CORRIDOR
59 10/28/2008
622 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90 Strategy, Maintain Residential Character: 1999 Corridor Study assumptions have become
obsolete due to land use changes on both the north and south sides as well as traffic impact
change.
no change, 10/14/2008
623 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90 The various use of the word “arterial” is confusing and isn’t consistent with the Transportation
Plan (Street Classification) on p. 62. There is a problem with the various definitions in terms of
ROW. (Recommend a more thorough look at the various sections to determine “best fit”
classifications for each.)
no change, 10/14/2008
624 10/27/2008 Pat Rice Subarea section was missing -- page was blank. So I don't know what if any changes have been
made.
625 10/27/2008 Pat Rice 88/90 section re:maintaining residential character is obsolete. That whole paragraph from land use to
traffic simply is no longer applicable. Should be deleted or some comment made that although
that study was referred to, many changes have taken place both in land use and traffic.
10/31/2008 Pat Rice 88 There is still no change in the wording on p.88 in the East/West Connectivity. I thought I heard
Brad say that it would be re-worded to be more cohesive. Also look at the wording in the
Homeplace Subarea. The wording says the east/west connection between Westfield and Penn
is "essential" etc.
626 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 91 The alternative alignment (shown on p.91 upper right corner) is not one of the six transportation
options that were evaluated the 1999 Study (see Append. B/Special Study Area) This new
option would mean demolishing the Westfield Blvd. bridge and skewing the proposed 96th
extension in such a way as to cut off north/south connectivity of Westfield Blvd. in order to make
an east/west connection on 96th Street. (#6 in the Study is consistent with “Connect
Pennsylvania Parkway to Westfield Boulevard” and the above mentioned descriptions and
maps.) The new design would involve the State as well as the Marion County MPO, be
extremely costly, and seriously affect the residential areas on both sides (Sherwood Forrest and
The Retreat). (Recommend deletion of this option.)
no change, 10/14/2008
627 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91 two lane “arterial” / three lane arterial w/commercial context: 96th St. from Keystone (4 lanes)
narrows to three lanes (although not marked) to two lanes just before Haverstick. Suggest
keeping this configuration into the proposed round-about then becoming a Secondary Parkway
(cf/entry into round-about at Westfield). The 96th Street extension may not have adequate ROW
for a median but would continue perhaps as a Residential Parkway.
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
628 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91 Bike path crossing needs to be added across 98th St. with flashing lights. (Path from Aramore
will connect here as well as future paths along the east side of Westfield.) The crossing at the
round-about is unsafe giving the number of accidents occurring and the number and variable
vehicle traffic. (Walking across is hard enough!)
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
629 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91 Need signage to indicate connection route to Monon. Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
630 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91 At present, there doesn’t seem to be bike routes (or multi-paths) planned for this area. Aramore
plans to connect Chesterton with a path through the ROW. Haverstick needs a bike path on the
east side connecting with Lakewood Gardens sidewalks and then again across 98th St. to Hope
Church where paths or sidewalks should be installed along east and south edges.
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
631 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91 Path along 96th Street (to be constructed) as part of road improvement. Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
60 10/28/2008
632 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91 Path on west side of Lincoln between 96th St. and 98th St. (Aramore path). (Could this be done
as part of the sewer project to run down Lincoln?)
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
633 10/14/2008 Pat Rice Add new
Subarea
Recommend addition of “96th St. & Westfield Boulevard District Subarea” as new pages 92-93
with a map reflecting the boundaries shown on attached map and change to map on p.101.
Recommend adopting submitted land use map in keeping with the vision of the proposed update
of the Comprehensive in the following references:
no change, 10/14/2008
634 • (p.17) Essence Objective 1.5 “Strongly promote mixed use in areas suitable for commercial
development, and protect residential areas from unsuitable commercial development.
635 • (p.24) Essence Objective 1.4 “Allow greater development intensity on the north, west, and
south edges of the district to serve as a transition from more intensely developed areas.”
636 • Essence Objective 3.2 “Endeavor to plan neighborhoods, gateways, boundaries, and service
areas through more detailed subarea plans.
637 • (p.36) Neighborhood Service Node (Geographic Location) “Strategically utilized around
Carmel in walking or cycling proximity to suburban, urban and attached residential
classifications.”
638 10/14/2008 Pat Rice Add new
Subarea
Recommend the attached for a 96th St. & Westfield Blvd. District Subarea. Wording from the
Home Place Subarea was utilized.
no change, 10/14/2008
639
640 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 92 If form based code "replaces" the zoning ordinance, on what basis could an undesirable use be
denied?
no change, 10/14/2008
641 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 92 Discouraging ground floor offices and on-street parking conflicts with the Primary and Secondary
Core lists of ground floor office uses (pages 42,43), and also with Urban Streets that allow on-
street parking.
no change, 10/14/2008
642 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 94 Maps are on pages 98/99; not 94. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
643
644 8/26/2008 Chamber 95, 96, 97 Old Meridian: Mixed Use Design Guidelines These too specific in our opinion, even delving into
sign specifications (e.g. “Ground floor tenants should be allowed 1 ½ square feet of sign area
per lineal foot of building signage. . .” How will this language be integrated into the new sign
ordinance?
no change, 10/14/2008
645 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 95 To be consistent, the lower left column should use "stories", instead of "feet". no change, 10/14/2008
646 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 95 Multifamily Attached units look alike and are difficult for drivers to identify. Better to regulate size
of freestanding signs than to prohibit them.
no change, 10/14/2008
647 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 95 Why are drive-throughs prohibited in this mixed-use "Village", but are allowed in the less intense
Village of WestClay?
no change, 10/14/2008
648
649 9/23/2008 Matt Milam 100 Since Carmel has not annexed Home Place and not taking any tax dollars from the area and the
Home Place annexation is in court for the next three years. I would suggest that the City of
Carmel leave Home Place area out of the Comprehensive Plan.
no change, 10/14/2008
650 9/23/2008 Matt Milam 100 If you are going to leave Home Place in the plan, please have a representative from the Home
Place area on the committee so that the people who live in the area have imput.
no change, 10/14/2008
City Center/Old Town Subarea
OLD MERIDIAN SUBAREA
HOME PLACE SUBAREA
61 10/28/2008
651 9/23/2008 Matt Milam 100 This compehensive plan has changed names a number of times and is an off and on process. If
you are going to institute the plan, then put it in place. Quit wasting taxpayer money year after
year and quit wasting peoples time since they have to sit through the meetings year after year.
no change, 10/14/2008
652 9/23/2008 Matt Milam 100 Home Place does not need buildings that have the retail on the bottom with condo's on top or
other office space. This is a fine design if the City of Carmel wants that for their streets, but leave
Home Place alone. The fiscal plan that Carmel wrote for the annexation said that it would keep
the Home Place history in place and not go making it just like Carmel. The people of Home Place
do not need arches, and all brick buildings and statues and all the other crap you have in Carmel
to make us feel important.
no change, 10/14/2008
653 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 101 Home Place Subarea: Change "8" Story to "10" Story. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
62 10/28/2008
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
1 11/10/2008 Historical Society Map The Carmel Clay Historical Society supports an "Urban Residential" zoning designation for the site of our
Monon Depot Museum and grounds at 211 First St. SW, and the entirety of the surrounding neighborhood. It is
also essential that "Character Areas" in Carmel be described clearly in official language as banning townhomes,
and that the rule of five (5) units per acre be strictly adhered to during future development.
it is ok how it is. Tryingto say
for the life of the comp. plan
the lazzaaea is to remain the
same.
2 Infill housing of greater than five units per acre would clearly be in stark contrast to the historic context of this
unique urban area. Since the Plan Commission recently refused to rezone part of this Character sub-area,
specifically to safeguard three properties on First St. SW because of the negative impact such a rezoning would
have on this predominantly one-story neighborhood, it is now essential that all Character Areas be firmly and
permanently designated "Urban Residential" on the City Land Use Map, and that townhomes not be allowed
within these residential areas.
3 10/31/2008 Pat Rice Map the Land Classification map should include The Retreat area which includes the ROW for 96th St. extension to the
Monon. It should also include all the way over to Keystone from 96th to 99th. Was this overlooked? The map in
this section correctly brackets over to Keystone.
Will be made a study area.
31 CORRIDOR
4 11/1/2008 Barbara Layton Map Oh dear. We have a situation here.... We were PROMISED by City Council when the Clarian rezone was
granted that residential would remain along Spring Mill Road west of Illinois Street. Surrounding lands were
specifically discussed, and we were PROMISED that, in particular, the Pittmans would not be allowed to claim
hardship/domino as a result of the Clarian rezone and also have their land rezoned. FYI, the land to the west of
Spring Mill is currently for sale at commercial rates. Suppose that owner is also hoping for a broken promise as
well?
The latest Comp Plan draft has Pittman's land designated as an Area for Special Study, which when translated, is
step one for a rezone. City Council PROMISED this would not be allowed to happen. Please honor the
PROMISES made and do not reclassify either the Clarion or Pittman land. Both need to remain and be developed
residentially. Thanks so much.
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
5 10/28/2008 Brad Grabow 54 Urban Collector Street: Should street trees be listed as a primary priority? decision for the City to make.
This was made secondary
just to make it appropriate.
This will stay the same.
6 10/28/2008 Brad Grabow 74 Second paragraph mentions dashed lines, but there are no dashed lines on the Bike/Ped map. no need to mention
7 10/28/2008 Brad Grabow 74 Suggest indicating trails in Coxhall Park and Gardens because of their wider connectivity to things like VOWC and
West Park
this will be added.
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
8 11/6/2008 Ron Houck 86
The graphic added to Part 5 in the US 31 Corridor section is misleading. Although it is probably designed to be
generically applied, it does not accurately represent the circumstances of our neighborhood with a 100 foot buffer.
Additionally, the buffer area that is shown west of Illinois Street shows deciduous trees taller than a two-story
home. To not have a negative impact on our neighborhood, the buffer must provide total visual screening year
round. This would mean mounding and coniferous trees. The average specimens planted are usually 6-8 foot in
height. Even with mounding, this only provides a 10-12 foot height in the buffer area. To the graphic attached
here, I added a typical line-of-sight from a home to the 10-story building in the cross-section. A view of the upper
stories of high buildings is unacceptable, if our property values are to be protected. For buildings fronting onto US
31 and near adjacent residential areas the building height should not exceed six stories and for the 3-story and 6-
story buildings there should be a maximum height restrictions of 45 feet and 80 feet, respectively.
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MAP
NORTH CENTRAL CARMEL
SOUTH CENTRAL CARMEL
this will be sent on to the City Council.
PART 4: TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PART 5: CRITICAL CORRIDORS & SUBAREAS
US 31 CORRIDOR
BUILDING HEIGHT - TRANSITION SENSITIVE RESIDENTIAL
adrienne showed a visual and ron houck showed a visual including a asking for buildings to be no higher than 6 story.
9 11/4/2008 Dan Oldiges 86
10 foot high buildings on Meridian Street? I live in the Spring Mill Place Subdivision and it seems to me that no
one in Carmel cares about US!!! You want to put the land north of us into commercial (North of 111th) and you
want us to wake up every morning to see a large office complex. Carmel just recently annexed us and it seems
that all they want to do is make our lives miserable. This is a neighborhood with homes not office complexes. If
you are going to force things upon our neighborhood at least contact our neighborhood association and let us
know what your plans are before you decide to have last minute meetings to change your minds.
IE.....Designation of north of 111th as a "study" area!!!!
Make the buildings shorter and stop having meetings to keep changing your minds when we are not there!!!
I realize this is not your fault and that you are just being the messenger but some one has to tell the zoning
commission to stop this nonsense.
10 11/4/2008 Gerry Golden 86 With our Spring Mill Place group pushing this concern, why can't the engineers develop a graphic that represents
OUR area? That area is between Springmill and Meridian and between 106 and 111 th streets.
We can't correctly respond unless we see an actual graphic with correct buffer area and type as outlined in
resolution.
The engineers keep putting this off as they do not want the council and us to see "reality"?
WIth that graphic it will become obvious that even an 8, 9 or 10 story building next to Meridian across from us will
be too tall because of sight lines from homes on east side of Spring Mill Place. I am unable to attend the Wed 12th
meeting.
11 11/4/2008 Carolyn Scott 86 It is our hope that the plans for the US 31 Corridor would not include 10 story buildings. Buildings of this heighth
would ruin so much of the beauty of our neighborhood. Please RESPECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD and OUR
FAMILIES by keeping the proposed buildings to no more than the 6 stories.
11/7/2008 Kathleen Hart 86
I repeat my prior comments and request that the City of Carmel and Plan Commission restrict the existence
and/or height of commercial buildings in the Meridian Street Corridor and anticipated Illinois Street segment near
our neighborhood, Spring Mill Place (located between 106 and 111 Streets on Spring Mill Road) and take all other
measures to comply with the Resolution No. CC-12-17-01-02 that requires our neighborhood to have a
"continuous visual and sound buffer" from the development vis a vis coniferous, deciduous trees and variable
mounding, as well as realignment of Illinois Street right-of-way if necessary. Thank you.
12 11/7/2008 John & Tammy Lieberman 86 We are in agreement with Ron Houck (my neighbor in the Spring Mill Place subdivision) and his comments (per
the "Part 5 in the US 31 Corridor."
13 11/7/2008 Andrew Marsh 86 I agree with Ron Houck's comments below. Being at the back of a cul-de-sac and having woods behind our lot
which will face Illinois street and the buildings, we want a reasonable amount of buffer betweeen our back yard
and the road/buildings. There needs to be discussion with the homeowners as to the exact amount of buffer/trees,
etc that will be utilized. Thanks. Andy
14 11/7/2008 Linda Oldiges 86
The graphic added to Part 5 in the US 31 Corridor section is misleading. Although it is probably designed to be
generically applied, it does not accurately represent the circumstances of our neighborhood with a 100 foot buffer.
Additionally, the buffer area that is shown west of Illinois Street shows deciduous trees taller than a two-story
home. To not have a negative impact on our neighborhood, the buffer must provide total visual screening year
round. This would mean mounding and coniferous trees. The average specimens planted are usually 6-8 foot in
height. Even with mounding, this only provides a 10-12 foot height in the buffer area. To the graphic attached
here, I added a typical line-of-sight from a home to the 10-story building in the cross-section. A view of the upper
stories of high buildings is unacceptable, if our property values are to be protected. For buildings fronting onto US
31 and near adjacent residential areas the building height should not exceed six stories and for the 3-story and 6-
story buildings there should be a maximum height restrictions of 45 feet and 80 feet, respectively.
15 11/8/2008 Rhonda Marsh 86
I just wanted to agree with the email you received from Ron Houck regarding the potential building height of the
proposed buildings to line the new section of Illinois Street. It will pass along the back of our property. Currently
we enjoy a quiet view out of our backyard windows with the ability to view wildlife and nature daily. Please don't
ruin this view with 6-10 story buildings! The main reason we purchased this home for our family with 2 young
children was our 2 acre wooded, quiet, safe lot!! We are very concerned about what these proposed changes will
do to our yard, view and property value. We are asking that the height of these buildings be limited to under 6
stories maximum! Thank you for your consideration on this most sensitive matter!! Please forward this email to
the appropriate council members!
16 10/31/2008 Pat Rice 88 There is still no change in the wording on p.88 in the East/West Connectivity. I thought I heard Brad say that
it would be re-worded to be more cohesive. Also look at the wording in the Homeplace Subarea. The wording
says the east/west connection between Westfield and Penn is "essential" etc.
96TH STREET CORRIDOR
64 11/12/2008
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
1 9/15/2008 Leslie Webb I believe that city plans must explore the most energy efficient designs possible in our buildings (LEED, Energy
Star, etc) and means of transportation (mass transit of some sort). We need to provide an alternative to cars.
The era of cheap energy is over and those cities that are best prepared will have a marked advantage. Minimize
urban sprawl. More mixed use. We must support and encourage alternative energy options such as wind and
solar to move away from fossil based fuels and reduce our carbon footprint. We should protect existing trees and
plant as many more trees as possible to sequester carbon, provide cooling and air/water filtration. Please explore
all green and sustainable city planning practices.
2 10/6/2008 Lee, Margaret & Doug
Dolen
We respectfully ask that the "history chapter" be returned to the Carmel Clay Comprehensive Building Plan. We
believe that it most important to preserving Carmel's architectural heritage.
3 10/6/2008 Jeremy Boarman I am writing as a property owner in Old Town Carmel and as a member of the Carmel Clay Historical Society. I
recently became aware that the "history" chapter was removed from the Carmel Clay Comprehensive Building
Plan. I urge that the missing chapter be reinstated in the plan to ensure the integrity of the architectural culture of
the community be preserved.
4 10/9/2008 Judy Hagan I read in the C/C Historical Society newsletter that the historic landmark section of the comp plan was being
deleted or not included. I totally support the landmark section being retained and expanded actually, to include
the landmark farm house on the south side of 116th Street, a little east of the MononGreenway. Mike Hollibaugh
visited it a few years ago with me when there was development pressure. It should be a inventoried at a
minimum.
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
5 9/9/2008 CWIC2 8 A section in the previous draft on page 8 was omitted, which we believe should be included: "The West Carmel
district…has the least developed road network…[Additionally, it is] unlike East Carmel, where many
neighborhoods were built with connecting streets to adjacent developments or stubbed streets to undeveloped
areas." Traffic does not have, and cannot have nearly as many options in at least the southern part. This
important defining characteristic should be listed and considered for planning purposes.
10/28/2008 CWIC2 6 All of page 6 is new?
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
6 9/8/2008 Dan Dutcher I suggest a reference to the likely timetable for "build out." I think that would dovetail well with the discussion
regarding the emergence of Carmel as an Edge City, beyond a traditional residential suburb.
GENERAL COMMENTS
PREFACE
PART 1: COMMUNITY PROFILE
PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE
Comprehensive Plan Comments - OCTOBER 23, 2008 DRAFT
65 10/28/2008
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
7 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Obj. 1.4, second sentence: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. The previous version said “Avoid
unplanned or harsh contrasts in height, building orientation, character, land use, and density.” Now it is
“Discourage.” Not an improvement and it should be changed back.
8 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Obj. 1.5: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. Are we really saying that essentially we always want to
see mixed use in commercial areas? Is there no concern that there may be a limit to demand for this or that the
desire for this be more specific to areas that contain, or will contain, typical urban shopping and entertainment
venues—as in not in a suburban areas that want to be sururban.
9 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 Policy 1 Into: The last sentence before Objective 1.1 states, “This model [form-based] is more permissive of
mixed used nodes and requires greater sensitivity to transitions between differing land classifications.” How will
this be truly accomplished? What guarantees do residents have that it won’t be at the whim of changing faces at
DOCS, the Plan Commission, and City Council and however they want to interpret “permissive” and “sensitivity”
at that time? How do we trust this, when Carmel West residents turned out in droves for the 2020 Plan to insist
on a density of 1 u/a, but we’ve had to keep fighting over this? Now you’re asking us to “trust” on this issue when
we’re once again fighting to keep the character of the area the same as it was when we decided to invest in our
homes in the area. This isn’t just a wording problem—it’s a problem with the concepts contained in the Plan. If
this is only a problem with Carmel West, then apply the concepts east of Meridian and give plans for Carmel West
enough structure and limitations that this issue goes away. Here are examples that feed fears about future
“insensitivity” being imposed:
1. Objective 1.4, 2nd sentence: The previous version said “Avoid unplanned or harsh contrasts in height, building
orientation, character, land use, and density.” Now it is “Discourage.” Not an improvement and it should be
changed back.
2. Objective 1.5: Discussed (but contributes to the fear).
3. Objective 3.2. Discussed & modified (but contributes to fear--implies this should be utilized everywhere at all
times, even in low-density residential areas.)
4. Objective 3.4 has the same problem as Objective 3.2
5. Objective 4.1. Discussed. Change terminology for “traditional neighborhood design principals.”
6. We understand the benefits stated in Objective 4.5, but please understand the benefits of not having
commercial uses of any kind nearby. Carmel West residents are smart and know what benefits are most
important to them and chose the area specifically because of the benefits of not including retail amongst
neighborhoods. This is the most problematic Objective in the document.
10 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17 We’d suggest an Objective be added stating the importance of maintaining areas for traditional suburban
residences.
11 9/9/2008 CWIC2 18 Obj. 3.2: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed, even though discussed and modified to add the words
“where appropriate” at the end of the first sentence.
12 9/9/2008 CWIC2 18 Obj. 3.4: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. Has the same problem as Objective 3.2
DOCS Note: Policies and Objectives were consolidated and re-numbered for consistency
66 10/28/2008
13 9/9/2008 CWIC2 19 Obj. 4.5: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. We understand the benefits stated in Objective 4.5, but
please understand the benefits of not having commercial uses of any kind nearby. Carmel West residents are
smart and know what benefits are most important to them and chose the area specifically because of the benefits
of not including retail amongst neighborhoods. This is the most problematic Objective in the document.
14 10/25/2008 John B. Tintera There are 3 references in C3 to LEED as follows; page 20, Objective 7.5, page 21, Objective 7.8 and page 21,
Objective 7.14. Please add Energy Star and Green Globes for alternative certification. Shown below is a link to
a recent article in Scientific American covering some of the common objections to LEED Certification.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=leed-compliance-not-required&print=true
15 9/12/2008 Julie & Jerry Williams 21 Obj. 7.5: The City should require (not strongly recommend) LEED or equivalent buildings for all new taxpayer paid
construction.
16 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21 Obj. 7.10: Be mindful that windmills, large solar panels, electrical utilities, water towers, and cell towers are
eyesores in residential aeras. Take great care in locating and screening.
17 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 1.2: "Allow" has been changed to "support and encourage"! (mention new "support centers", too.) Locate
nodes NOW, and get public approval. To the "strictly regulated" list, add hours of operation, buffering, uses, and
signage. The impact of these nodes is more than visual.
18 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 3.2: Put a limit on density that transitions to residential. Impacts of increased density are not just visual. now Objective 6.2
19 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 4.2: Discourage "residential opportunities" near the mine. The problems were predictable, and houses
already there should not have been approved.
now Objective 7.2
20 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22 Obj. 4.5: Add "locate and design it so as to minimally impact surrounding residences."
21 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 1.2: Add "buffering, use of transitional design", as was done for North Central Carmel.
22 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24 Obj. 2.1, 2.2: Threats of redevelopment are causing residents to panic and leave. Busy roads are not a buffer.
23 9/15/2008 Karen Gould 25 General Comments: I am also opposed to any increase in amenities, such as gas stations and shops. We are
quite content to drive to what we need, not to have it in our immediate neighborhood. When we became part of
Carmel, we thought Carmel would look out
for the needs of the people...not tell us what our needs are (more retail, etc.)
This is a residential area and we do no want an urbanized area shoved on us. Let us be a part of the decision as
to what becomes of our area. There are plenty of shops on Michigan Road or on Meridian at which we all can do
our business. We don't want it in our neighborhood.
24 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 General Comments: Suburban (and especially West Carmel) residents have chosen not to live close to high
density and commercial development. Estate owners will move away from it. West Carmel is already conveniently
and adequately served. Any location issues need to be settled now. Otherwise, there will be a fight over every
proposal. Also, "PUDs" still need to be addressed in West Carmel.
25 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 1.1, 1.2: Increase open space requrement soon, before buildout. Replace "Allow" wilth "Consider".
Distinguish between Neighborhood Support Centers and Neighborhood Service Nodes. The size and density of
the latter are especially not appropriate in West Carmel. To the "strictly regulated", ADD hours of operation, uses,
signage, and buffering.
26 9/8/2008 CWIC2 25 Obj. 1.1: We’ve heard the argument that if you can’t really see the homes as you drive down the road, it doesn’t
really matter how many homes are in the subdivision. That’s not an argument we buy and it is not what we want.
The only way this works is if a significantly large open space is mandatory, not “considered.”
27 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 2.1: This "sub-area" is the current low density zoning of all of West Carmel.
67 10/28/2008
28 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 2.2: Custom homes require higher-income buyers, who generally do not desire to be near higher densities
and/or commercial development. "Accessory dwellings" is vague. Are they prohibited now? Can they be rentals?
29 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.1: The last sent. Is STILL a problem. "Residential intensity" has unwanted effects in West Carmel, whether
it is visible or not.
now Objective 6.1
30 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 3.2 Insert "including" before the word "along".
31 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 4.2: Leave out entirely, or replace "Establish" with "Consider". They are not needed or wanted here, are not
compatible with preserving rural character, and would not significantly prevent driving. They would struggle to
survive and would add large truck traffice, noise, light, and trash problems.
now objective 7.2
32 9/8/2008 CWIC2 25 Obj. 4.2: Neighborhood service nodes are not compatible with the reason people chose to invest in their homes in
a community of large lot homes. It makes Objectives 2.1 and 3.1 unachievable.
now objective 7.2
33 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 5.1: Emphasize keeping road changes in character with the area. now objective 1.5
34 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25 Obj. 5.4: Replace "WestClay Secondary Core" with "The Village of WestClay". As per page 42, the Village of
WestClay commercial core is a "Secondary Core" in form only.
now objective 1.8
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
10/28/2008 CWIC2 LCM VOWC Still Urban Residential West of Towne Rd. Should be Suburban Residential
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MAP
PART 4: TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PART 5: CRITICAL CORRIDORS & SUBAREAS
SPRING MILL CORRIDOR, ILLINOIS CORRIDOR - LAND USE
DOCS Note: See Cross-Section drawing on Page 86, illustrating height transition from 10 stories to residential areas
DOCS Note: After discussions with Engineering, 4-Lane Residential Parkway has been deleted.
DOCS Note: SW Clay Right-of-Way was addressed by noting classifications with lesser width.
68 10/28/2008
36 10/15/2008 Andy Marsh
I am a homeowner is Spring Mill Place Subdivision just south of 111th on the east side of Spring Mill Road. We
purchased our home 5 years and planned to raise our two small children at the back of a cul-de-sac with a heavily
wooded backyard. The mere thought of a busy road being located just on the other side of our property line with
the potential for 6-10 story office buildings makes us very uneasy. One of the reasons were purchased this home
and piece of property it is located on was the seclusion and peacefullness that is hard to find in a neighborhood in
Carmel. We live on nearly 2 acres and reguarly have deer, rabbits, and other wildlife in our back woods and yard
and the thought of losing them to another roadway and commercial office buildings is a shame. While we
understand the birms and trees are planned to seperate our backyards from the Illinois street expansion, having
this in our backyard will create noise and decrease our property values which is unfair.
On a second note, I would like to express my desire to retain the orange color designation (residential) for the
parcel of land just north of our subdivision located between 111th and 116th street just east of springmill road. On
Sept 23, 2008, it was agreed upon to leave this area as residential and move on to other areas of concern. To our
surprise, on Oct 14th meeting, this same area was discussed again, while not on the agenda for that evening, and
some plan commission members asked that this area be changed to pink. This action defeats the purpose of
deciding to do one thing and then changing to another. This process is unfair and a complete waste of time for
community members to show up if previous decisions are cast away and new agendas delivered.
37 10/15/2008 Ron Houck
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study
the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates.
The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being
considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as
residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at
the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a second bite at the
apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather
than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly
unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting.
As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th
and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a
special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet
more meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents.
38 1015/2008 R. Kevin Williams
I agree with Ron Houck. In addition, I should bring to your attention, that over 20 years ago, Dr. Pittman attempted
to get all this acreage re-zoned commercial at that time. This was not long after we built and purchased our
house. At the time, this re-zoning did not agree with the comprehensive plan. They attempted to use the fact he
received a slight variance for one parcel, to act as precedent for re-zoning the whole section of land. I personally
hired Ice Miller at that time to fight this, then was joined by other residents. At that time, the planning commission
was frankly overwhelmingly in favor of this change. However, in my opinion, when they found out they might be in
for an extended legal battle, apparently they re-considered, and decided to shelve it. Shortly thereafter, when Dr.
Pittman and Jim Nelson again tried to force the issue, a concerned group of residents here gathered together and
successfully defeated the proposal.
69 10/28/2008
Dr. Pittman decided to (for a time) turn that property into a pig farm, as an attempted slap in the face to the
residents. At the time, Browning called me at my office several times, trying to get me to convince folks to settle,
because the smell was directed towards his development. However, as one of my neighbors who grew up on a
farm said... "the smell doesn't bother me, to me it smells like money!" Eventually that pig farm went away. I am
sure he will threaten something like that again.
Nothing has changed. As a matter of fact, there is MORE residential in this area that would be affected at this
time. I am sure this issue would be fought even harder this go around. There are parties that are still attempting to
surround our neighborhood with commercial development. This was not what we expected when we purchased
our houses, nor improved them over the years. I am sure this would be an extended and messy battle that would
make the annexation look like a picnic.
39 10/15/2008 Linda Oldiges
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study
the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates.
The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being
considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as
residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to Section 5. I did not attend the Oct.
14th meeting but was upset to hear that this previous area was revisited without warning. I don't understand how
all of you could consider making this a special study area whereas commercial use could be considered. At the
last meeting we were told that our neighborhood fit the description of yellow on your maps. How could you
entertain putting a commercial area next to a low density subdivision. In addition we have million dollar estate
homes across the street, which should be deemed green on the map. This study does not make sense to me and
sounds like a big waste of tax payers money. I am starting to lose faith in your whole process.
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. I
understand that some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land
between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that
time. Why then would you make this a special study area now. It seems that this action merely prolongs the
process and involves our subdivision in more meetings. Are you merely trying to wear us down? What's going
on here??
40 10/15/2008 Gerry Golden
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision since 1981, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area
to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes
Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now
being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as
residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections.
However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a second bite
at the apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting,
rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is
certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
70 10/28/2008
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting.
As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th
and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a
special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet
more meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents.
41 10/16/2008 Michael Diehr I live at 10966 Springmill Lane in Carmel just south of the Parcel of land by our subdivision (111th - 116th St on
the east side of Springmill Road). This is the parcel affectionately known as the Pittman pig farm. I do not want
this parcel of land (the Ptiman Pig farm) to be changed from it's residential status to a special study area. This
would have a adverse affect on my property value and change the quality of life in our neighborhood. I oppose
this change.
42 10/16/2008 CPT David Gardiner I am a resident of Spring Mill Place subdivision. I have been unable to attend the recent planning meetings due to
the fact that I am currently serving overseas on active duty for the military.
I have recently learned, from other similarly concerned residents, that the commission is considering creating a
special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern
border of Spring Lakes Estates. I am very much opposed to this! This area has many families living across the
street on 111th and Springmill streets. It is not appropriate for this land to be turned to commercial use and the
large increase in traffic and light pollution.
Another office park does not fit the character of the area nor the vision of its resident's who believe that the best
use for the land is for residential or continued agricultural purposes.
My understanding is that the meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map.
The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and a decision was made to leave it
designated as residential - as it should be.
However, at the October 14th meeting this same issue was raised again by those wishing to take a second bite at
the apple. It seems to me this issue was settled at the previous meeting. The fact that it was allowed to be
reconsidered w/out advance notice to interested parties is a great disservice to interested residents like myself
who have been told this issue has been resolved at a previous meeting.
This area should remain designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting. Caving in to
special interests and creating a special study area merely prolongs the process in the hopes that local residents
will weary of the bureaucracy and endless meetings and eventually give in.
It is my hope that you do your best to help prevent this area from becoming yet another office park.
43 10/16/2008 Carolyn Scott As a resident of Springmill Place, I would ask that the designation of the parcel of north of our subdivision retain
orange color. We would like to preserve the beauty and character of our neighborhood. Commercial buildings
would destroy this!
44 10/16/2008 Lou Jenkins
Please accept my request to retain the color mapping of orange from the possible change to pink. As I
understand the proposal, this would allow Dr.Pittman to convert zoning from residential to commercial. This is
clearly not the understanding of the home owners in Spring Mill Place that the property would be developed
commercially. If you would pass my request to stay with the orange mapping, I would appreciate your help.
71 10/28/2008
45 10/16/2008 Dan & Linda Oldiges
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study
the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates.
The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being
considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as
residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at
the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a second bite at the
apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather
than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly
unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting.
As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th
and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a
special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet
more meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents.
46 10/19/2008 Suzanne Glesing My name is Suzanne Glesing, and I am a resident in the Spring Mill Place subdivision. As a resident, I am
opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of
111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates.
I realize that there was recently a meeting which took place on September 23rd that was solely devoted to
discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the
decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to
move on to subsequent sections.
It is also my understanding that on October 14th another meeting was held and the previous conclusion from the
September meeting was reversed. This is a disservice to your process and especially a disservice to those who
took the time to attend the FIRST meeting. Why take the time, if simply another meeting will be held less that one
month later and have all of previous discussions revisited and CHANGED? Especially when it was not even on
the agenda and all of the same people are not in attendance.
Having been made aware of the results of the September meeting, I felt no need to attend the October
meeting because a decision had already been made. Apparently I was wrong. Even though these issues were
finalized at the previous meeting - they were revisited without the same people who had previously taken the time
to be present. This is absolutely unfair and seemingly unethical. The correct process is to leave the area
designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting.
As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th
and 116th Streets is ONCE AGAIN going to be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at
that time. WHY?! This has already been addressed, and finalized in September. Creating a special study area
merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents of my subdivision in yet MORE MEETINGS, a
strategy merely designed to wear down my neighbors and myself. We all have busy lives involving our children,
our families, our jobs and whatever else. Taking the time to attend YET ANOTHER meeting - feel as if our
presence is worthwhile - only to find out that it will once again be a WASTE OF TIME leaves all of us more than
disappointed in the system that we are expected to count on.
I WILL be at the next meeting - as will many other members of my neighborhood. Hopefully the effort will result in
an improvement of communication and resolve.
72 10/28/2008
47 10/19/2008 Valerie Eickmeier
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study
the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates.
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting!
Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our
subdivision in yet more meetings.This is clearly a strategy merely designed to wear down the residents of our
neighborhood. The Carmel Plan Commission should do the right thing for the members of this residential
community!
48 10/20/2008 Jacqueline Baques I agree with Valerie's statements. If the decision was already made at the prior meeting to leave the area
designated as residential, there was no need to revisit that topic at the next meeting. Our neighborhood's
consensus is that we ALL would like to see that area left at its former designation as residential.
49 10/19/2008 Dan Belcher
I am a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision and would like to state my opposition to the creation of a
special study area for the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to 116th Street. The area
now being considered for special study was discussed on September 23 and the decision was made to leave it
designated as residential. I am in favor of leaving this area designated as residential, and considering future
project proposals at the time they are presented to the Plan Commission. Creating a special study area is
unnecessary and only prolongs the process to the advantage of developers who ultimately want this area
changed from residential to commercial. This change would clearly be to the detriment of the homeowners in our
subdivision. Please strongly consider this request to maintain this area designated as residential.
50 10/20/2008 Janice Byrne As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study
the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates.
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to
at the September 23rd meeting!
Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our
subdivision in yet more meetings. This is clearly a strategy merely designed to wear down the residents of our
neighborhood. The Carmel Plan Commission should do the right thing for the members of this residential
community!
51 10/20/2008 Alexis Schwartz As a new resident of the Spring Mill Place neighborhood, I am in complete consensus with the rest of my
neighbors that the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring
Lakes Estates should be left as residential as agreed to in the September 23rd meeting. Developing this land for
commercial use would not only adversely affect the value of our homes in Spring Mill Place, but it would also
increase the traffic through our subdivision as well as throughout the surrounding thoroughfares in the area.
Additionally, bringing another commercial development so close to our neighborhood increases the safety risks to
Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one of the primary
reasons we bought our home. A commercial development at 111th and Spring Mill changes the entire make up of
the area. We do not appreciate the potential for more commercial so close to our homes any more than the
$1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill would.Please forward these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the
Carmel Plan Commission, so that he and the rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our
neighborhood and the greater Spring Mill area.
73 10/28/2008
52 10/20/2008 John and Tammy
Lieberman
My wife and I are homeowners in the Spring Mill Place subdivision (10989 Spring Mill Lane) which subdivision is
located due south of the Pittman Parcel. I am the principal real estate broker in Lieberman and Associates, Inc.
and have been a licensed real estate broker for 23 years. I have been involved in several feasibility studies of
many residential and commercial properties over many years as my father was a real estate developer.
Obviously, my wife and I and all home owners in Spring Mill Place are concerned about our future property
values.
I am aware that the Pittman Parcel is being considered as a potential special study area under the
Comprehensive Plan for Carmel. I am in agreement with Ron Houck (that lives in our subdivision) per his prior
statement to you. I believe the best use of the Pittman Parcel in light of the existing residential communities
surrounding that parcel is for the Pittman Parcel to be residential.
I realize that no specific project/development proposal is being reviewed right now by the Carmel Planning
Commission for development of the property. But given the nice Williams Mill subdivision (on the west side of
Spring Mill Road across from the Pitman Parcel), I believe that another well planned development like Williams
Mill would fit well into the residential design and flavor of our existing two subdivisions (Williams Mill and Spring
Mill Place.)
I am therefore opposed to changing the property to a Special Study Area. Thank you for giving consideration to
my thoughts as well as to all of the other home owners in the Spring Mill Place subdivision.
53 10/20/2008 Rick Pearson I'm also a resident of Spring Mill Place and fully agree with those I'm referencing below. In addition please include
my position to those who have written before me.
Those proposing and supporting this special study are using this as a tactic to buy time by drawing those
opposed into battle of attrition. We have jobs, families, and other responsibilities and should not have to
continually make a case against an obstinate desire to commercially develop a piece of property that has already
been addressed. The safety of our children, the value of our homes, and the overall community that exists today
should not be overlooked for someone else's profit. This neighborhood is well established and has a strong desire
to maintain the community it has created. I believe it is on record by the very developer pushing this issue, that
the property being discussed cannot be developed residentially because there is no value in homes constructed
next to an office building. How can one argue homes will have a lower value and cannot be built and then insist
on putting an office next to our homes and pretend it will have no impact our community? This is ludicrous.
I implore you to realize and honor what we as a community have work so hard to create and preserve over the
years. Please re-establish the property being referenced back to residential.
54 10/20/2008 Lani & Greg
Thompson
I am in complete consensus with my neighbors who've written previously to express their opinion that the area on
the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates should be
left as residential as agreed to in the September 23rd meeting.
Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely affect the value of our homes in Spring Mill
Place, but it would also increase the traffic through our subdivision as well as throughout the surrounding
thoroughfares in the area. Additionally, bringing another commercial development so close to our neighborhood
increases the safety risks to our children because of the amount of both automotive and foot traffic that a
commercial development would bring.
74 10/28/2008
Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one of the primary
reasons we bought our home. A commercial development at 111th and Spring Mill changes the entire make up of
the area. We do not appreciate the potential for more commercial so close to our homes any more than the
$1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill would. Please forward these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the
Carmel Plan Commission, so that he and the rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our
neighborhood and the greater Spring Mill area.
55 10/20/2008 Gary and Denise
Lewis As residents of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, we are opposed to the creation of a special study area to study
the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th St. to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates.
The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being
considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as
residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at
the October 14th meeting this same ground was addressed again by those wishing to try it again. This is a
disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting
issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those
who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting.
As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th
and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a
special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in more
meetings, a strategy seemingly designed to wear down the residents. We plan on attending the October 28th
meeting to monitor the progress being made on behalf of our community.
56 10/21/2008 Mike Sharp I concur with the many e-mails you have received on this topic.
57 10/21/2008 Chris & Alexis
Shwartz
We are aware that the Pittman property (east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street) is being considered
as a potential special study area under the far reaching Comprehensive Plan for Carmel. Consistent with the
vote at the September 23rd meeting, we strongly believe that the property should remain residential, and
therefore strongly oppose changing its classification to a Special Study Area.
The fact that those supporting commercial development decided to bring this matter up at a subsequent meeting
following a decision to classify residential further clouds our belief in a fair and appropriate process. This
approach was unfair to us that believed this issue was decided at a previous meeting.
Developing this land for commercial use will: 1. Adversely affect the value of our homes in Spring Mill Place as
well as the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill Road
2. Increase traffic through our subdivision as well as those surrounding thoroughfares in our area
3. Increase the safety risks to the many children that call Spring Mill Place home with added foot and automotive
traffic
4. Potentially increase crime in our area.
Our position and consensus on this topic is unwavering.
58 10/21/2008 Rhonda & Andy
Marsh
I am in complete consensus with my neighbors who've written previously to express their opinion that the area on
the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates should be
left as residential as agreed to in the September 23rd meeting.
75 10/28/2008
Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely affect the value of our homes in Spring Mill
Place, but it would also increase the traffic through our subdivision as well as throughout the surrounding
thoroughfares in the area. Additionally, bringing another commercial development so close to our neighborhood
increases the safety risks to our children because of the amount of both automotive and foot traffic that a
commercial development would bring.
Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one of the primary
reasons we bought our home, having 2 small children. A commercial development at 111th and Spring Mill
changes the entire make up of the area. We do not appreciate the potential for more commercial so close to our
homes any more than the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill would.
Our land backs up to the land that will be developed for Illinois Street, so we are also VERY concerned with the
potential height o f the buildings that will line Illinois Street. The reason we bought this home was because it is on
a 2 acre wooded lot and we love the wildlife that inhabits the area behind our house. We (our children) will be
losing the opportunity to see deer, ducks, rabbits, squirrels, etc... out of our back windows when this project is
complete. Please don't ask us to look out our windows at 6-10 story buildings instead!!
Please forward these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the Carmel Plan Commission, so that he and the
rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our neighborhood and the greater Spring Mill area.
59 10/21/2008 Bill & Brie Williams
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area for the
land on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates.
We put our home up for sale last summer and several prospective buyers asked specifically about the potential
development of the aforementioned land parcel. The uncertainty about the future development of that property
negatively impacted our ability to sell our home. Most buyers voiced the same concerns that we ourselves have
about the negative impact such development would have on our property value in the future.
The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being
considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as
residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at
the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a second bite at the
apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather
than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance.
This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous
meeting.
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting.
As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th
and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a
special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet
more meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents.
76 10/28/2008
60 10/21/2008 Jill H. Meisenheimer I have attended several Carmel Comp plan meetings in the past and I thought the following issue had been
decided months ago. As a resident of Williams Mills subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study
area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road from South of 116th Street to the southern border of
Spring Lakes Estates. I have heard that the meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the
Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision
was left designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent
sections. I was dismayed to hear that at the October 14th meeting this same area was revisited though it was not
on the agenda and interested parties were not in attendance. This is not fair to those people who thought these
issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
The area should be still designated as residential (orange), as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting.
I am also terrible concerned that the Comp Plan is suggesting a requirement of 6-10 story buildings in this area.
Already the traffic in our area is so clogged that I often have a tough time getting to and from our Williams Mills
home from 116th and Meridian and that doesn't even include the impossiblity of actually waiting for the many
traffic lights it can take to actually cross Meridian at 116th Street. I plan to be at the meeting on next Tuesday.
61 10/21/2008 Richard Clement We are very concerned about the plan to revise zoning for the Pittman property north of 111th. We definitely will
attend the October 28th meeting.
62 10/21/2008 Richard Vitales
As a resident of the Williams Mill subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study of the area on the
east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting
on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for
special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the
conclusion of that meeting, the process was to move on to subsequent items of business. However, at the
October 14th meeting, this subject was once again revisited by those who want to reverse the decision already
made. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather
than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly
unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting.
As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th
and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a
special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet
more meetings; a strategy merely designed to wear down residents.
63 10/22/2008 David Roach My name is David Roach, and I am a resident in the Spring Mill Place subdivision.
I am in complete consensus with the entire neighborhood that does not want the land to the north of 111th Street
to become a commercial property and does not want this property to be a special study area. Development of this
land commercially would negatively impact our neighborhood(traffic,theft,values,etc.).Please leave the area as
residential as agreed.We do not feel that 6-10 story buildings to the east of our neighborhood would be in our best
interest.
We do not need any prolonging meetings wearing down the residents of this neighborhood.The Carmel Planning
Commission should make this decision as if they were living here with no agenda.
64 10/24/2008 Barbara Layton Adrienne, we were at the meeting wherein Steve Pittman requested that his pig farm be reclassified, and such
request was denied. The revised comp plan indicates his request was honored.
77 10/28/2008
We OBJECT to his land being reclassified.
Further, the land north along Spring Mill Road owned by Clarian was zoned residential. This was a compromise
intended to satisfy the surrounding residential property owners. This too has been reclassified.
Please DO NOT reclassify either of these two properties. No commercial west of Illinois MUST remain in effect.
Thanks much. :-)
65 10/25/2008 Michael & Robertal
Mattasits
As homeowners and residents of the Williams Mill subdivision, located at 111th & Sprindmill Rd., we are opposed
to the creation of a special study area for the parcel of land east of Springmill and north of 111th (commonly
referred to as the Pittman Pig Farm).
We support the current residential designation.
66 10/26/2008 Lyle Hartman My wife Marian and I live in Williams Mill and have lived in Carmel or Clay Twp since 1972. The Plan
Commission indicated at the Sept 23rd meeting that the east side of Spring Mill North of 111th street would
remain residential. However, the Oct 14th meeting indicated an intent to revisit this decision and create a special
study area. This issue appears on the agenda for Oct 28.
The process of revisiting agenda items that were previously agreed to creates confusion and is unfair to those
who attend meetings and leave believing that issues have been finalized. The process needlessly involves
residents in more meetings and is a waste of time and money. The Plan Commission may want to consider a
process where areas like this would be reviewed on a routine schedule of perhaps every five (5) years. Such a
process would permit all parties to be appropriately notified and to be able to attend meetings when issues are
being considered that have an impact on their immediate neighborhoods.
Please allow the prior decision to stand and leave this area zoned residential.
67 10/27/2008 Kathleen Hart I attended the Sept 30 and Oct 14 meetings which addressed, among other items, the Land Use Map for the
Illinois Street expansion along our neighborhood, Spring Mill Place. I appreciate all the hard work that your
Commission is putting in on this project. However, I write to ask that you reconsider the vote on October 14 to
create a special study (pink) area for the east side of Spring Mill Road between 111 and 116th Streets (the
Pittman parcel). I may not be able to attend the Oct 28 meeting and hope you will consider this email in lieu of
my attendance. The reasons, some of which I tried to raise during the Oct 14 meeting, are as follows:
1. Our neighborhood appeared at the Sept 23, 30 and Oct 14 meetings for areas that affect the perimeter of our
neighborhood. As stated previously, our neighborhood has approximately 48 homes on 1+ acres each.
2. On Sept 23, we were told to return on Sept 30 because the agenda was too full to reach our area of interest.
At the Sept 30 meeting, a vote was taken after discussion that our neighborhood (east side of Spring Mill Road
between 106 and 111th Streets) should be changed to "yellow" on the land use and planning map because it
qualifies for low density classification and not likely to change any time in the foreseeable future. We thank you
for this discussion and vote.
Also at the Sept 30 meeting, Mr. Pittman attended and advocated that his entire parcel be changed to
employment node (blue) color, making arguments about helicopters and residential development that were not
accepted. A discussion was held and vote taken, which resulted in no color change to his parcel (which is
presently residential/orange east of Spring Mill Road and blue east of Illinois Street).
78 10/28/2008
3. At the Oct 14 meeting, many reps of our neighborhood as well as Mr. Pittman appeared once more. It was
confirmed on the record that even though the map colors had not changed, our neighborhood segment was
indeed now to be yellow. Mr. Pittman then took the opportunity to ask that blue be extended to his entire parcel --
and many of his written comments repeated a suggestion that the commercial zone be extended to the west side
of Illinois all the way to Spring Mill Road; after discussion, this was declined (I recall one basis was that a vote
previously taken and would not be revisited) and the orange color was to remain between Spring Mill Road and
Illinois Street.
At a later point in the Oct 14 meeting, discussion was had about the Clarian segment (north of 116th Street). It
was suggested that a special study (pink) area be created. A discussion (with many people talking over each
other) was held -- in the midst of which Mr. Pittman added his property -- and the vote taken to create a special
study (pink) area -- apparently for both Clarian and Pittman parcels.
4. The Clarian and Pittman parcels are very different as to what borders them and why Clarian may qualify for
amendments as to future use that Pittman should not. As I was briefly able to raise at the Oct 14 meeting, the
first vote and second discussion on the Pittman parcel should hold firm, i.e., it stay orange. Further, that changing
it now to a special study area will require our low density neighborhood to attend countless more meetings so in
the future we cannot be foreclosed from protesting any amended use or zoning sought for the Pittman parcel.
5. Government works because we have good leaders who make decisions after hearing the voices of its
citizens. The Commission heard discussion on the Pittman parcel on September 30 and voted to keep it orange.
Our neighborhood attendance paid off. This decision was even used as the basis to keep the parcel as orange
when Mr. Pittman asked a second time for a change early into the October 14 meeting. By then, Mr. Pittman had
authored more comments on the subject (many long ones) and obtained comments from new supporters who
didn't appear at the meeting yet generically favored westside development -- although not specifying it required
Pittman's particular parcel to do so. If Mr. Pittman (or others) are allowed to show up eternally and refine their
arguments and support for a vote they repeatedly seek (and to the eventual attrition of foes who relied on the prior
vote when they timely gave their arguments and showed support), the process breaks down and is entirely
unreliable for all of its citizens.
6. Therefore, I ask that you reinstate the Sept 30 vote on the Pittman parcel upon which many of my neighbors
relied and do not allow the Pittman parcel to become part of the special study area that is appropriate for its
differently situated neighbor, Clarian.
SUMMARY:
Spring Mill Place (between 106 & 111 Streets): YELLOW
Pittman parcel (between 111 & 116 Streets): ORANGE
Clarian parcel (north of 116 to Spring Lakes subdivision): PINK
Thank you.
79 10/28/2008
68 10/27/2008 Ed Skarbeck
My name is Ed Skarbeck, I am a resident of Spring Mill Place Subdivision…In addition to the email that I
submitted below (on September 9, 2008), please accept this email as my input in regards to the issues described
below. As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area on
the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. From
previous meetings and communications, I was under the impression that this area would remain properly zoned
as residential. However, it has come to our attention that the area is being “revisited” at the meeting tomorrow,
10/28/08. How many times are we going to have to go through this? I will attend tomorrow’s meeting and, again,
support the unanimous position of our neighborhood to strongly oppose the re-zoning of this area. Please note,
that I am in full support of the detailed emails and communications that Ron Houck has provided you in regards to
the many issues we are dealing with in the changes proposed to our surrounding neighbors and areas.
69 10/27/2008 Chad M. Pulley I am counsel for Conseco, Inc. who owns 48 acres of undeveloped land on the southwest corner of Springmill Rd.
and 116th St (the “Parcel”). This land is one of the largest undeveloped tracts of land along Springmill Rd. on the
east side of “West Carmel” and has a unique opportunity to significantly contribute to West Carmel’s landscape.
However, in order to promote the greatest contribution to West Carmel’s landscape, the Parcel should be included
in the Special Study so that its optimal uses can be considered in conjunction with the uses of the land along the
east side of Springmill Rd. This land can provide significant value to the Special Study by providing more
potential and opportunities. Furthermore, there is no cost to the City of Carmel for at least including these 48
acres in the analysis, research, and plans of the Special Study. Therefore, we respectfully request that the
Committee include the Parcel in the Special Study and designate the Parcel as “Area for Special Study” on the
C3 Plan map
70 10/27/2008 Chuck Cremens I am the authorized representative of Conseco Inc, dealing with the 48 acres at the southwest corner of 116th
and Springmill Rd. I have been following the C3 Plan meetings through our real estate agents, Resource
Commercial Real Estate and our legal counsel, Riley Bennett & Egloff, who have attended all of the Special
Committee's meetings. I have also had dicussions with other owners in the area, in particular Steve Pittman. It is
our understanding that the Committee has recommended that there be a "Special Study" to address the
Springmill Corridor. We couldn't agree more with the proposed approach. We also think it is essential that
Conseco's 48 acres be included in the "Special Study" process. It is important for its inclusion due to its location
and size. We also hope that we can bring value to the Committee through our active paricipation in the Study
process. Conseco and the Committee believably share the same objective of maximizing the opportunity along
the Springmill Corridor.
Thank you for your work on this important project and your consideration to include our property in the "Special
Study".
71 10/27/2008 Pat Rice Subarea section was missing -- page was blank. So I don't know what if any changes have been made.
72 10/27/2008 Pat Rice 88/90 section re:maintaining residential character is obsolete. That whole paragraph from land use to traffic simply is no
longer applicable. Should be deleted or some comment made that although that study was referred to, many
changes have taken place both in land use and traffic.
96TH STREET CORRIDOR
80 10/28/2008
X Date Name Part Page Comment Notes
1 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 7 East, 3rd Paragraph, last sentence: typo "this" not "his" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
2 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 7 East: Add Village Park Mall and Cool Creek Commons OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
3 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 8 South Central, 4th paragraph: “There are two golf courses; one that is under pressure to be
redeveloped.” Belongs in Comp Plan? Who is applying the pressure and why?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
4 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 8 South Central, 6th Paragraph: 96th Street is a connector SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
5 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 12 4th Paragraph: do you mean Woodlands instead of Woodlots? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
6 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 14 Parkland: Central Park is now built, paragraph outdated OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
7 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.2: "desired features" definition? no change in text, 9/9/08
8 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.3: Very specific language. Is the Comp Plan an ordinance? In other words, can it be
perceived as the law in Carmel?
no change in text, 9/9/08
9 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 1.5: What is “unsuitable commercial development?” no change in text, 9/9/08
10 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.2: Can we say we want more businesses and not just more corporations? OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
11 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.3: “The City needs to commission a study on housing choices.” Belongs in Comp Plan? no change in text, 9/9/08
12 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Obj. 2.4: is an opinion, not an objective OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
13 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 17 Policy 1, 1st sentence: “Managing community form is the art and science of influencing
development in a manner that results in a superior quality built and natural environment in
which people reside, work and recreate; and creates the opportunity for businesses to thrive.”
Say what?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
14 8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.10: Instead of “Encourage” can we provide incentives for buildings to be constructed of
high-quality materials?
no change in text, 9/9/08
15 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.3: Encourage owners – add “through zoning amendments” – to retrofit. . .” OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
16 8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.5: “Create incentives for development – add standards.” no change in text, 9/9/08
17 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 18 Obj. 3.5: Lessening is misspelled as “lessoning.” OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
18 8/26/2008 Chamber 19 Obj. 4.6: “Disallow incompatible site and building designs.” Examples? no change in text, 9/9/08
19 8/26/2008 Chamber 20 Obj. 6.1: Define monotonous. What are Carmel’s “character goals?” Wouldn’t defining
character goals be something a comp plan would address?
no change in text, 9/9/08
20 8/26/2008 Chamber 21 Obj. 7.3: We need a definition for “large-scale employment nodes.” While the encouragement
of walking and bicycling is laudable, requiring businesses to provide facilities for walkers and
bikers is expensive, both to build and to maintain.
no change in text, 9/9/08
21 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 22 Obj. 2.2: What is “world class?” Why would specific developments (i.e. Village of West Clay
and Earlham College property) be singled out?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
22 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 22 Obj. 3.3: Why would the city’s comp plan drill down to suggesting that a particular property
owner, in this case Northview Christian Life Church, be encouraged to sell a portion of its land?
This struck us as completely inappropriate for this document.
deleted OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
23 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 23 Obj. 1.2: Is specifying the height of buildings the job of the comp plan? deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
24 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 23 Obj. 2.4: We do not understand why musical performances would be a topic for
comprehensive plan.
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
25 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 24 Obj. 1.5: “Areas adjacent to single family residential should not exceed five unites per acre. . .”
The job of the comp plan or zoning ordinance?
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
26 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 25 Obj. 2.1: “. . .other housing styles that cater to high income families.” Do we really want to say
this? West Carmel is for rich people? Doesn’t use of the term “estate character” convey this in
a less-offensive way?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
27 8/26/2008 Chamber 25 Obj. 3.3: We understood there a Michigan Road overlay already exists. We also are having
trouble matching the concept of a four-lane highway with “village character.”
no change in text, 9/9/08
28 8/26/2008 Chamber 25 Obj. 5.1: Who pays for the required pedestrian and bicycle paths? no change in text, 9/9/08
29 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 30 Development Features: “Minimum of 10% open space in subdivisions. . .” Comp plan or
zoning ordinance? Should there be mention of trails or bicycle/pedestrian connectivity here?
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
30 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 34 Purpose: We’re not sure if “workforce housing” is the new term for affordable, diverse housing
opportunities, but wonder if Carmel wants to specify whom they are identifying. Why teachers,
fire fighters and police officers? Why not retail salespeople, roofers and nurses’ aides? We’d
recommend the deletion of the items in parenthesis.
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
31 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 36 3rd Photo: The caption on the lower picture singles out an existing building. We’d recommend
the use of outside-of-Carmel examples when the document is being critical.
fixed caption, OCTOBER 23
DRAFT
32 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 36 Development Features: “Strip development is discouraged.” Even if the strip of shops abuts
the street?
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
33 8/26/2008 Chamber 39 Land Uses, 4th Bullet: Fourth bullet – isn’t this a zoning ordinance issue? We’d make the
same comment about the items under Structure Features on this page.
delete "but only" OCTOBER 23
DRAFT
34 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 40 Development Features: same comments as previous about strip commercial development. deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
35 8/26/2008 Chamber 41 Structure Features: Does this belong in the comp plan or zoning ordinance? no change in text, 9/23/08
36 8/26/2008 Chamber 42 Structure Orientation on Site: Same as above. Detail that in our opinion belongs in the zoning
ordinance.
no change in text, 9/23/08
37 8/26/2008 Chamber 86 Keystone: does this need section to be updated due to recent engineering and construction? no change, 10/14/2008
38 x 8/26/2008 Chamber 88 Design Guidelines, 5th bullet: A definition of corporate “branding” architecture is needed. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
39 8/26/2008 Chamber 88 US 31: Requiring 6-10 story buildings? In comp plan? no change, 10/14/2008
40 8/26/2008 Chamber 89 US 31: Map – should mixed use be indicated? Retail nodes? What is Transition-Sensitive
Residential?
no change, 10/14/2008
41 8/26/2008 Chamber 95, 96, 97 Old Meridian: Mixed Use Design Guidelines These too specific in our opinion, even delving
into sign specifications (e.g. “Ground floor tenants should be allowed 1 ½ square feet of sign
area per lineal foot of building signage. . .” How will this language be integrated into the new
sign ordinance?
no change, 10/14/2008
42 x 8/26/2008 Chamber Feeling that the document is frequently too specific to particular sites or developments. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
43 8/26/2008 Chamber Lots of vague terminology and definition issues remain. No change in text, 9/9/08
44 8/26/2008 Chamber The Chamber supports the inclusion of the encouragement of transit nodes in new
neighborhoods.
no change, 9/30/2008
351 31 CORRIDOR
401 8/14/2008 Adam Houghton Thorough Plan
402 9/8/2008 Adam Houghton Thorough Plan
516 10/20/2008 Alexis Schwartz
174 9/3/2008 Andy Crook 31
190 8/19/2008 Andy Crook 32
317 9/3/2008 Andy Crook LCM
4 8/19/2008 Andy Crook
480 10/15/2008 Andy Marsh
451 8/21/2008 Barbara Layton 88
96TH STREET CORRIDOR
Comprehensive Plan Comments - July 24,
353 8/21/2008 Barbara Layton LCM
553 10/24/2008 Barbara Layton
540 10/21/2008 Bill & Brie Williams
464 9/26/2008 Bob McKinney 89
368 9/26/2008 Bob McKinney LCM
453 9/30/2008 Brent Claymon 89
159 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 29
BUILDING HEIGHT - TRANSITION SENSITIVE RESIDENTIAL
158 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 29
164 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30
160 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30
166 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30
169 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30
170 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30
168 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30
161 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 30
178 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31
179 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31
183 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31
173 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31
176 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31
180 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 31
201 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32
195 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32
198 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32
200 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32
193 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32
189 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32
199 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 32
206 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33
208 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33
211 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33
212 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33
213 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33
203 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33
202 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33
209 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 33
223 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34
218 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34
220 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34
221 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34
222 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34
215 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 34
239 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35
233 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35
235 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35
232 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35
230 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35
237 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 35
247 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36
250 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36
253 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36
241 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 36
262 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37
256 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37
258 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37
255 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37
260 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 37
268 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 38
270 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 38
274 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 39
275 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 39
277 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 40
280 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 40
278 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 40
283 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41
285 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41
290 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41
289 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41
281 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41
287 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 41
295 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42
296 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42
292 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42
294 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 42
299 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43
300 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43
298 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43
297 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif 43
307 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM
304 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM
338 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM
343 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM
328 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM
305 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM
306 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM
348 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM
344 9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM
595 9/14/2008 Carolyn Scott 88
500 10/16/2008 Carolyn Scott
579 10/27/2008 Chad M. Pulley
446 9/6/2008 Chad Scott 88
32 8/26/2008 Chamber 7
31 8/26/2008 Chamber 7
35 8/26/2008 Chamber 8
36 X 8/26/2008 Chamber 8
48 8/26/2008 Chamber 12
53 8/26/2008 Chamber 14
59 8/26/2008 Chamber 17
61 8/26/2008 Chamber 17
64 8/26/2008 Chamber 17
67 8/26/2008 Chamber 17
68 8/26/2008 Chamber 17
70 8/26/2008 Chamber 17
73 8/26/2008 Chamber 17
78 8/26/2008 Chamber 18
82 8/26/2008 Chamber 18
84 8/26/2008 Chamber 18
86 8/26/2008 Chamber 18
94 8/26/2008 Chamber 19
102 8/26/2008 Chamber 20
114 8/26/2008 Chamber 21
120 8/26/2008 Chamber 22
124 8/26/2008 Chamber 22
127 8/26/2008 Chamber 23
128 8/26/2008 Chamber 23
130 8/26/2008 Chamber 24
139 8/26/2008 Chamber 25
144 8/26/2008 Chamber 25
149 8/26/2008 Chamber 25
167 8/26/2008 Chamber 30
214 8/26/2008 Chamber 34
254 8/26/2008 Chamber 36
252 8/26/2008 Chamber 36
272 8/26/2008 Chamber 39
279 8/26/2008 Chamber 40
286 8/26/2008 Chamber 41
293 8/26/2008 Chamber 42
423 8/26/2008 Chamber 86
436 8/26/2008 Chamber 88
584 8/26/2008 Chamber 88
440 8/26/2008 Chamber 89
626 8/26/2008 Chamber 95, 96, 97
6 8/26/2008 Chamber
5 8/26/2008 Chamber
420 8/26/2008 Chamber
532 10/21/2008 Chris & Alexis
Shwartz
580 10/27/2008 Chuck Cremens
493 10/16/2008 CPT David Gardiner
10/28/2008 CWIC2 6
30 9/9/2008 CWIC2 6
City Center/Old Town Subarea
40 9/9/2008 CWIC2 8
43 9/9/2008 CWIC2 9
62 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17
63 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17
69 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17
71 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17
76 9/9/2008 CWIC2 17
81 9/9/2008 CWIC2 18
83 9/9/2008 CWIC2 18
88 9/9/2008 CWIC2 18
92 9/9/2008 CWIC2 19
97 9/9/2008 CWIC2 19
104 9/8/2008 CWIC2 20
110 9/8/2008 CWIC2 20
137 9/8/2008 CWIC2 25
138 9/8/2008 CWIC2 25
147 9/8/2008 CWIC2 25
157 9/19/2008 CWIC2 29
162 9/19/2008 CWIC2 30
165 9/19/2008 CWIC2 30
177 9/19/2008 CWIC2 31
181 9/19/2008 CWIC2 31
171 9/19/2008 CWIC2 31
186 9/19/2008 CWIC2 32
191 9/19/2008 CWIC2 32
185 9/19/2008 CWIC2 32
184 9/19/2008 CWIC2 32
226 9/19/2008 CWIC2 35
228 9/19/2008 CWIC2 35
248 9/19/2008 CWIC2 36
242 9/19/2008 CWIC2 36
419 9/29/2008 CWIC2 Bike/Ped Map
312 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM
333 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM
337 9/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM
329 9/22/2008 CWIC2 LCM
335 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM
311 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM
334 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM
313 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM
325 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM
320 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM
323 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM
324 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM
326 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM
318 9/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM
309 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM
308 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM
310 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM
10/28/2008 CWIC2 LCM
316 9/29/2008 CWIC2 LCM
406 9/29/2008 CWIC2 Thorough Plan
153 9/19/2008 CWIC2
384 9/29/2008 CWIC2
502 10/16/2008 Dan & Linda Oldiges
513 10/19/2008 Dan Belcher
75 8/26/2008 Dan Dutcher 17
152 8/26/2008 Dan Dutcher 25
46 8/19/2008 Dan Dutcher
47 9/8/2008 Dan Dutcher
593 9/9/2008 David Roach 88
550 10/22/2008 David Roach
21 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5
19 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5
18 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5
22 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5
20 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 5
27 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6
25 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6
23 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6
29 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6
28 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6
24 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6
26 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 6
41 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 8
42 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 9
45 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 9
44 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 9
49 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 12
50 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 12
51 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 13
52 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 13
55 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14
57 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14
54 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14
56 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 14
58 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 16
60 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17
65 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17
66 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17
72 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17
74 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 17
79 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18
80 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18
85 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18
87 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18
89 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 18
90 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19
91 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19
93 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19
95 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19
96 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19
98 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19
99 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 19
100 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20
103 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20
105 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20
106 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20
108 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20
109 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 20
118 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21
113 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21
116 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21
117 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 21
119 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22
121 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22
123 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22
125 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22
126 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 22
129 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24
131 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24
132 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24
133 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 24
135 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25
136 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25
140 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25
141 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25
142 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25
143 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25
145 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25
146 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25
148 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25
151 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 25
156 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 28
155 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 28
163 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 30
175 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 31
172 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 31
182 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 31
196 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32
197 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32
192 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32
188 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 32
205 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33
207 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33
204 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33
210 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 33
216 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 34
217 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 34
219 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 34
234 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35
229 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35
231 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35
227 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35
225 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35
236 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35
238 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35
224 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 35
246 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36
249 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36
244 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36
243 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36
251 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36
245 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36
240 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 36
257 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 37
261 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 37
259 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 37
267 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38
264 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38
269 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38
266 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38
265 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38
263 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 38
273 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 39
276 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 40
284 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 41
282 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 41
288 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 41
291 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 42
303 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 44
302 9/22/2008 Dee Fox 44
385 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 53
392 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 58
391 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 58
394 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 60
393 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 60
395 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 61
399 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 62
397 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 62
398 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 62
415 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 70
416 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 73
417 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 74
421 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 84
427 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 86
428 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 86
426 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 86
439 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 88
442 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 89
441 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 89
624 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 92
623 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 92
625 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 94
628 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 95
627 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 95
629 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 95
634 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 101
388 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 55,56
387 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 55,56
389 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 55,56
33 9/8/2008 Dee Fox 7 & 8
596 9/29/2008 Dee Fox 88/89
330 9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM
331 9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM
319 9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM
315 9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM
314 9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM
407 9/29/2008 Dee Fox Thorough Plan
405 9/29/2008 Dee Fox Thorough Plan
11 9/8/2008 Dee Fox
12 9/8/2008 Dee Fox
10 9/8/2008 Dee Fox
7 9/8/2008 Dee Fox
8 9/8/2008 Dee Fox
9 9/8/2008 Dee Fox
301 9/22/2008 DOCS 44
591 9/9/2008 Ed Skarbeck 88
578 10/27/2008 Ed Skarbeck
413 9/30/2008 Fred Yde Thorough Plan
528 10/20/2008 Gary and Denise
Lewis
437 9/9/2008 Gerry Golden 88
448 9/9/2008 Gerry Golden 88
592 9/9/2008 Gerry Golden 88
489 10/15/2008 Gerry Golden
590 9/9/2008 Hart 88
447 9/9/2008 Hart 89
445
456 9/26/2008 Irina Powers 89
HOME PLACE SUBAREA
ILLINOIS CORRIDOR - ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT
360 9/26/2008 Irina Powers LCM
455 9/26/2008 Ivan Barrett 89
359 9/26/2008 Ivan Barrett LCM
457 9/26/2008 Jack & Kathy Gordon 89
361 9/26/2008 Jack & Kathy Gordon LCM
512 10/20/2008 Jacqueline Baques
452 9/30/2008 James Browning 89
346 9/30/2008 James Browning LCM
514 10/20/2008 Janice Byrne
15 10/6/2008 Jeremy Boarman
544 10/21/2008 Jill H. Meisenheimer
601 8/19/2008 Jim Palecek 90
518 10/20/2008 John and Tammy
Lieberman
111 10/25/2008 John B. Tintera
562 10/25/2008 John B. Tintera
466 9/26/2008 John Levinsohn 89
370 9/26/2008 John Levinsohn LCM
476 9/29/2008 John Moorin 89
380 9/29/2008 John Moorin LCM
404 9/29/2008 John Tintera Thorough Plan
589 9/9/2008 Joseph Hile 88
599 8/19/2008 Joy Sullivan 90
187 9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison 32
194 9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison 32
271 9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison 39
425 9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison 86
355 9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison LCM
39 9/6/2008 Judy Hagan 8
38 X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 8
396 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 62
450 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 88
582 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 89
386 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan 55, 56, 62
418 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan Bike/Ped Map
340 X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan LCM
341 X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan LCM
16 10/9/2008 Judy Hagan
107 9/12/2008 Julie & Jerry Williams 20
115 9/12/2008 Julie & Jerry Williams 21
77 8/18/2008 Karen Carter 18
1 8/18/2008 Karen Carter
134 9/15/2008 Karen Gould 25
332 9/15/2008 Karen Gould LCM
564 10/27/2008 Kathleen Hart
525 10/20/2008 Lani & Greg
Thompson
14 10/6/2008 Lee, Margaret &
Doug Dolen
13 9/15/2008 Leslie Webb
487 10/15/2008 Linda Oldiges
501 10/16/2008 Lou Jenkins
327
354 9/9/2008 Luci Snyder LCM
559 10/26/2008 Lyle Hartman
3 8/19/2008 Marilyn Anderson
410 9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
Thorough Plan
LOW INTENSITY SUBURBAN (YELLOW) TOO DENSE FOR WEST CARMEL
408 9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
Thorough Plan
412 9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
Thorough Plan
411 9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
Thorough Plan
409 9/29/2008 Marilyn Anderson &
Randy Krupsaw
Thorough Plan
633 9/23/2008 Matt Milam 100
631 9/23/2008 Matt Milam 100
630 9/23/2008 Matt Milam 100
632 9/23/2008 Matt Milam 100
557 10/25/2008 Michael & Robertal
Mattasits
492 10/16/2008 Michael Diehr
473 9/29/2008 Michael Puckett 89
377 9/29/2008 Michael Puckett LCM
356 9/25/2008 Mike Johnson LCM
349 9/25/2008 Mike Johnson LCM
531 10/21/2008 Mike Sharp
X Date Name Page
X Date Name Page
X Date Name Page
X Date Name Page
X Date Name Page
X Date Name Page
X Date Name Page
X Date Name Page
342
34 8/6/2008 Pat Rice 8
37 X 8/6/2008 Pat Rice 8
602 8/19/2008 Pat Rice 90
597 8/6/2008 Pat Rice 90
603 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90
598 8/6/2008 Pat Rice 90
604 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90
605 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90
606 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90
607 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 90
614 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91
NO SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (ORANGE) IN WEST CARMEL
NORTH CENTRAL CARMEL
OLD MERIDIAN SUBAREA
612 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91
613 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91
615 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91
616 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91
610 10/14/2008 Pat Rice 91
611 10/7/2008 Pat Rice 91
609 10/27/2008 Pat Rice 88/90
617 10/14/2008 Pat Rice Add new
Subarea
622 10/14/2008 Pat Rice Add new
Subarea
400 8/6/2008 Pat Rice Thorough Plan
414 10/7/2008 Pat Rice Thorough Plan
608 10/27/2008 Pat Rice
390 9/9/2008 Peter Langowski 56
403 9/9/2008 Peter Langowski Thorough Plan
463 9/26/2008 Peter Powers 89
367 9/26/2008 Peter Powers LCM
484 1015/2008 R. Kevin Williams
458 9/26/2008 Randy Yust 89
362 9/26/2008 Randy Yust LCM
535 10/21/2008 Rhonda & Andy
Marsh
547 10/21/2008 Richard Clement
548 10/21/2008 Richard Vitales
522 10/20/2008 Rick Pearson
468 9/29/2008 RJ Rudolph 89
372 9/29/2008 RJ Rudolph LCM
461 9/26/2008 Rob & Anne Kelton 89
365 9/26/2008 Rob & Anne Kelton LCM
345 9/16/2008 Roger Kilmer LCM
587 9/5/2008 Ron Houck 88
586 9/5/2008 Ron Houck 88
583 8/19/2008 Ron Houck 88
585 9/29/2008 Ron Houck 88
482 10/15/2008 Ron Houck
347
449
434 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88
435 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88
438 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88
433 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88
432 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88
431 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 88
443 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 89
454 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 89
SOUTH CENTRAL CARMEL
SPRING MILL CORRIDOR, ILLINOIS CORRIDOR - LAND USE
444 10/10/2008 Steve Pittman 89
600 8/19/2008 Steve Pittman 90
352 8/19/2008 Steve Pittman LCM
339 9/26/2008 Steve Pittman LCM
357 9/26/2008 Steve Pittman LCM
350 9/26/2008 Steve Pittman LCM
2 8/19/2008 Steve Pittman
594 9/10/2008 Steven Kirsh 88
504 10/19/2008 Suzanne Glesing
424 9/5/2008 Tim DeFrench 86
17 8/24/2008 Tom Jones 5
101 8/29/2008 Tom Jones 20
122 8/26/2008 Tom Jones 22
150 9/11/2008 Tom Jones 25
154 9/20/2008 Tom Jones
471 9/29/2008 Tom Osborne 89
375 9/29/2008 Tom Osborne LCM
430 US 31 GENERAL
510 10/19/2008 Valerie Eickmeier
336
VILLAGE OF WESTCLAY
WEST CARMEL: OTHER
541
567
569
382
478
618
619
621
620
565
566
568
570
571
572
378
474
495
508
588
321
576
364
460
515
511
322
534
526
536
485
555
507
490
497
112
563
546
519
551
521
494
524
520
505
509
506
499
496
486
373
469
481
538
575
561
556
539
363
459
574
517
537
527
573
581
577
545
483
491
503
549
488
543
530
533
376
472
529
560
366
462
498
542
358
383
479
523
381
477
552
369
465
554
379
475
558
371
467
374
470
GENERAL COMMENTS
422
429
PREFACE
PART 1: COMMUNITY PROFILE
PART 2: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESSENCE
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MAP
PART 4: TRANSPORTATION PLAN
PART 5: CRITICAL CORRIDORS & SUBAREAS
KEYSTONE PARKWAY CORRIDOR
US 31 CORRIDOR
Residential Parkways are too large/unsafe for current conditions on residential streets including
Four Seasons Way. (this reflects west side connectivity exhibit)
The Thoroughfare plan includes a number of streets in the northwest corner of Carmel to be
converted from residential streets to residential parkways. Given that these new parkways will
go through established neighborhoods is there not a substantial safety risk associated with the
increased volume of traffic and the fact that a large number of houses will connect directly to
these parkways (very different to other parkways such as Ditch road where few houses connect
directly). In addition will this conversion to parkways (which would require widening the roads)
involve significant acquisition of land from existing home owners resulting in negative effects on
home values? Given that the current grid system in this area (Towne, 131st etc) will go through
significant improvements in the future, providing significant additional capacity, and that building
densities will remain low in these areas I am unable to see the justification for or benefit of
additional parkways in this area.
As a new resident of the Spring Mill Place neighborhood, I am in complete consensus with the
rest of my neighbors that the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to
the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates should be left as residential as agreed to in the
September 23rd meeting. Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely
affect the value of our homes in Spring Mill Place, but it would also increase the traffic through
our subdivision as well as throughout the surrounding thoroughfares in the area. Additionally,
bringing another commercial development so close to our neighborhood increases the safety
risks to our children because of the amount of both automotive and foot traffic that a commercial
development would bring.
Intensity/Density: Supports higher than 1.0 but thinks 1.5 should be upper limit in reflection of
what has been approved and developed. "Fill in" developments need higher densities to make
development of smaller tracts work financially.
Intensity/Density: 4.9 du/a is too high.
DO NOT support suburban residential classification in NW Clay. The map is too much patch
work nature. Support Low Intensity Suburban up to 1.5 instead.
Need an overall plan for utility placement. We have a 2nd rate substation; the city should take
more control
I am a homeowner is Spring Mill Place Subdivision just south of 111th on the east side of Spring
Mill Road. We purchased our home 5 years and planned to raise our two small children at the
back of a cul-de-sac with a heavily wooded backyard. The mere thought of a busy road being
located just on the other side of our property line with the potential for 6-10 story office buildings
makes us very uneasy. One of the reasons were purchased this home and piece of property it
is located on was the seclusion and peacefullness that is hard to find in a neighborhood in
Carmel. We live on nearly 2 acres and reguarly have deer, rabbits, and other wildlife in our
back woods and yard and the thought of losing them to another roadway and commercial office
buildings is a shame. While we understand the birms and trees are planned to seperate our
backyards from the Illinois street expansion, having this in our backyard will create noise and
decrease our property values which is unfair.
US 31: no Commercial West of Illinois, Pittman farm can be developed residentially
hensive Plan Comments - July 24, 2008 DRAFT , OCTOBER 23, 2008 DRA
No Commercial West of Illinois, believe Pittman farm can be developed residentially
Adrienne, we were at the meeting wherein Steve Pittman requested that his pig farm be
reclassified, and such request was denied. The revised comp plan indicates his request was
honored.
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special
study area for the land on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the
southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. We put our home up for sale last summer and
several prospective buyers asked specifically about the potential development of the
aforementioned land parcel. The uncertainty about the future development of that property
negatively impacted our ability to sell our home. Most buyers voiced the same concerns that
we ourselves have about the negative impact such development would have on our property
value in the future.
As a landowner in western clay township, custom builder and owner of Weichert Real Estate
Agency, I want to strongly encourage the leaders of the City of Carmel to plan western clay
township in a manner that is beneficial to the city as a whole. I am very concerned that west
clay be treated in a manner that is different than the rest of Carmel and in a manner that is
detrimental not only to the whole but to those of us who have made significant investments on
the west side of Carmel. It is my hope that we would encourage strong commercial uses on the
west side of meridian, that a development is created on the west side of meridian that would
serve the people who live on the west side and those who are employed on the west side. I
know it is very discouraging to the homeowners that I talk to, the business owners that I talk to
and the potential high end customers that we deal with who are required to jump in their car and
drive far distances for minor conveniences.
As a landowner in western clay township, custom builder and owner of Weichert Real Estate
Agency, I want to strongly encourage the leaders of the City of Carmel to plan western clay
township in a manner that is beneficial to the city as a whole. I am very concerned that west
clay be treated in a manner that is different than the rest of Carmel and in a manner that is
detrimental not only to the whole but to those of us who have made significant investments on
the west side of Carmel. It is my hope that we would encourage strong commercial uses on the
west side of meridian, that a development is created on the west side of meridian that would
serve the people who live on the west side and those who are employed on the west side. I
know it is very discouraging to the homeowners that I talk to, the business owners that I talk to
and the potential high end customers that we deal with who are required to jump in their car and
drive far distances for minor conveniences.
I live in SW Clay Township and would like to offer my perspective on future of development in
the 116th and Spring Mill area. There is a significant need for amenities, restaurants, retail
stores, etc. focused toward the West side of Carmel. Clarian Hospital is a very nice facility, but
clearly in need of complementary development. As things change with US 31 becoming limited
access, one would think this makes incorporating new development even more critical. Every
world class city has pockets of areas which offer diverse and unique destinations. It seems
glaring that West Carmel does not really have that (except for residential developments). A
commercial development would also grow the tax base for Carmel, which I have to believe is
important in light of challenging times. I would be strongly in favor of a creative mixed use world
class development in this area.
Examples: Delete Village of West Clay open space network, this is zoned PUD not a park zone
SITION SENSITIVE RESIDENTIAL
Land Uses: add "pocket parks" to the list
Best Fit: Remove Low Intensity Suburban and Suburban.
Can title be changed to from "Estate" to "Conservation" or "Rural" Residential?
Conditional Fit: add low intensity suburban residential (only at perimeter).
Development Features, 3rd bullet: delete "on estate sized lots" at the end of the sentence.
Development Features: add a bullet point, "Garages must be side-loaded or front-loeaded if set
behind the main building by at least 50 feet."
Development Features: delete second sentence (perception of open space), add "At least 50%
of the open space must be on dry land as a designed landscape."
Purpose: end the sentence after "…who desire a large residential lot"
Best Fit: delete Suburban Residential
Conditional Fit: add Suburban Residential (at edges), delete attached residential, neighborhood
service should be changed to support, delete community vitality node since there are none
present.
Development Features: add "and on dry land as a designed landscape."
Geographic location: Delete South Central since none is shown on the map
Intensity/Density: limit to 1.0. should not change from current densities without a public survey
Structure Orientation on Site: delete courtyard-loading garages.
1st Photo: Isn't Enclave 7 units per acre?
Best Fit: delete attached residential and neighborhood service node
Conditional Fit: add neighborhood support node, delete community vitality
Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape."
Intensity/Density: should be between 1.0 and 2.9. R-1 is now 2.9 max and shouldn't change
unless survey indicates otherwise.
Land Uses: delete 2nd bullet
Structure Features, 3rd bullet: add "on lots less than 80' wide."
Best Fit: delete neighborhood service node and core support
Conditional Fit: add neighborhood support node and core support only at edges of Old Town
Residential & limited to 2 stories)
Development Features, 1st bullet: increase open space from 10% to 30%
Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape"
Development Features, last bullet: instead of "have designs fitting the context," replace with
"look like a single family dwelling from each different street elevation"
Intensity/Density: should be between 2.9 and 5 units per acre.
Land Uses: delete 2nd bullet, since townhouses are listed under attached residential
Structure Features: delete "however, three stories may be appropriate in some circumstances"
2nd Photo: how about the Amli apartments on 146th?
Best Fit: delete suburban residential and urban residential
Conditional Fit: delete Low Intensity Suburban Res
Development Features, 1st bullet: increase open space from 20% to 30%
Development Features, 2nd bullet: add "on dry land as a designed landscape"
Purpose: replace text with "To establish opportunities for residents who want a more compact
living environment."
2nd Photo: add photo of bank at village of west clay
Best Fit: after suburban residential add "except in West Carmel"
Conditional Fit: delete estate residential, add "east carmel only" after Low Intensity Suburban
Res
Examples: add "see illustration"
Intensity/Density, 1st bullet: add "neighboring" in front of "developments"
Structure Features: change max height to 1.5 stories
Best Fit: delete Urban residential
Conditional Fit: delete Low Intensity Suburban Res, add Urban Res (at perimeter only)
Development Features: replace "is discouraged" with "that are built to the street."
Purpose: add "and sigle use" after mixed use
1st Photo caption: delete "a great" example
Best Fit: all classifications except "single family residential classifications"
Conditional Fit: single family residential classifications
Geographic Location, 2nd sentence: replace "integrated into" with "sensitively built when next to
residential"
Structure Orientation: add "honoring privacy and views of existing single family detached
dwellings"
Best Fit: delete "residential"
Conditional Fit: add attached residential, delete suburban and urban residential
Conditional Fit: delete suburban and urban residential
Structure Features, 1st bullet: add "and only two stories next to single family residential
neighborhoods"
Conditional Fit: add "attached" to residential
Development Features, 1st bullet: instead of "discouraged" replace with "built to the street"
Structure Features: delete "or eight stories if within the US 31 Corridor overlay." What about the
developer who wanted to build a residential tower between Clay Terrace and the residential
neighborhood to the west?
Best Fit: delete Urban residential
Conditional Fit: add urban residential (perimeter edges only)
Development Features: add bullet "Protect pre-development environmental features"
Development Features: increase open space to 20 or 30%
Land Uses: delete entertainment
Structure Features: add "two story maximim next to urban residential"
Development Features, 1st bullet: add "except next to single family detached neighborhoods."
Development Features: add bullet "Pocket parks are encouraged."
Land Uses: should entertainment be SU? Music/noise?
Structure Orientation: add bullet "A maximum of two stories at right-of-way next to single family
detached residential neighborhoods"
1st Photo: move to secondary core
2nd Photo: there are other nice drawings we could include here
Examples: delete Old Town Shops (move to secondary core, per map)
Geographic Location: delete Old Town (move to secondary core, per map)
131st & Ditch Community Vitality Node should be Neighborhood Support Node
Add back major street names to map
Along Spring Mill Rd, the existing residential neighborhoods need to be labeled with the density
they currently have. I doubt that they will be redeveloped before the next comp plan update
occurs.
Could we put a park at the Monon and Main, SW corner? I have had several people ask for
this….It would be an ideal location for a gazebo, park benches and bike parking during the Arts
festival. Most old towns have this amenity.
Green (1 unit per acre) should be used for all residential areas from 96th to 146th and Spring
Mill to Michigan Rd,. except for existing developments that exceed 1 unit per acre now.
In general the map is too specific (down to the parcel)
In general, residential densities should not be increased without an extensive homeowner
survey. I would change them all to their current densities until we get that information.
SW corner of 116th and Westfield Blvd should be Orange. We ruled out higher density when
we denied Townhomes at Central Park.
West of the Monon just south of there should be urban residential, not core support
US 31: As a resident of the Springmill Place neighborhood, I wanted to share my
disappointment and fear over the Illinois Street expansion.
Of greatest concern, the proposed 6-10 story buildings ruining the charm and safety of our
neighborhood. Every night when I put my kids to bed, I look out their windows and admire the
beautiful view. Our tree-lined neighborhood is what drew our family to Carmel. Looking out of
those same windows and seeing 6-10story buildings, would be devastating.
I would ask that the Carmel City Council would consider keeping existing families happy, instead
of trying to lure prospective tenants by proposing such tall buildings.
As a resident of Springmill Place, I would ask that the designation of the parcel of north of our
subdivision retain orange color. We would like to preserve the beauty and character of our
neighborhood. Commercial buildings would destroy this!
I am counsel for Conseco, Inc. who owns 48 acres of undeveloped land on the southwest
corner of Springmill Rd. and 116th St (the “Parcel”). This land is one of the largest undeveloped
tracts of land along Springmill Rd. on the east side of “West Carmel” and has a unique
opportunity to significantly contribute to West Carmel’s landscape. However, in order to
promote the greatest contribution to West Carmel’s landscape, the Parcel should be included in
the Special Study so that its optimal uses can be considered in conjunction with the uses of the
land along the east side of Springmill Rd. This land can provide significant value to the Special
Study by providing more potential and opportunities. Furthermore, there is no cost to the City of
Carmel for at least including these 48 acres in the analysis, research, and plans of the Special
Study. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Committee include the Parcel in the Special
Study and designate the Parcel as “Area for Special Study” on the C3 Plan map
US 31: I do not want Illinois street expansion by my neighborhood at 106th street through 111th
Street
East, 3rd Paragraph, last sentence: typo "this" not "his"
East: Add Village Park Mall and Cool Creek Commons
South Central, 4th paragraph: “There are two golf courses; one that is under pressure to be
redeveloped.” Belongs in Comp Plan? Who is applying the pressure and why?
South Central, 6th Paragraph: 96th Street is a connector
4th Paragraph: do you mean Woodlands instead of Woodlots?
Parkland: Central Park is now built, paragraph outdated
Obj. 1.2: "desired features" definition?
Obj. 1.3: Very specific language. Is the Comp Plan an ordinance? In other words, can it be
perceived as the law in Carmel?
Obj. 1.5: What is “unsuitable commercial development?”
Obj. 2.2: Can we say we want more businesses and not just more corporations?
Obj. 2.3: “The City needs to commission a study on housing choices.” Belongs in Comp Plan?
Obj. 2.4: is an opinion, not an objective
Policy 1, 1st sentence: “Managing community form is the art and science of influencing
development in a manner that results in a superior quality built and natural environment in
which people reside, work and recreate; and creates the opportunity for businesses to thrive.”
Say what?
Obj. 3.10: Instead of “Encourage” can we provide incentives for buildings to be constructed of
high-quality materials?
Obj. 3.3: Encourage owners – add “through zoning amendments” – to retrofit. . .”
Obj. 3.5: “Create incentives for development – add standards.”
Obj. 3.5: Lessening is misspelled as “lessoning.”
Obj. 4.6: “Disallow incompatible site and building designs.” Examples?
Obj. 6.1: Define monotonous. What are Carmel’s “character goals?” Wouldn’t defining
character goals be something a comp plan would address?
Obj. 7.3: We need a definition for “large-scale employment nodes.” While the encouragement
of walking and bicycling is laudable, requiring businesses to provide facilities for walkers and
bikers is expensive, both to build and to maintain.
Obj. 2.2: What is “world class?” Why would specific developments (i.e. Village of West Clay and
Earlham College property) be singled out?
Obj. 3.3: Why would the city’s comp plan drill down to suggesting that a particular property
owner, in this case Northview Christian Life Church, be encouraged to sell a portion of its land?
This struck us as completely inappropriate for this document.
Obj. 1.2: Is specifying the height of buildings the job of the comp plan?
Obj. 2.4: We do not understand why musical performances would be a topic for comprehensive
plan.
Obj. 1.5: “Areas adjacent to single family residential should not exceed five unites per acre. . .”
The job of the comp plan or zoning ordinance?
Obj. 2.1: “. . .other housing styles that cater to high income families.” Do we really want to say
this? West Carmel is for rich people? Doesn’t use of the term “estate character” convey this in
a less-offensive way?
Obj. 3.3: We understood there a Michigan Road overlay already exists. We also are having
trouble matching the concept of a four-lane highway with “village character.”
Obj. 5.1: Who pays for the required pedestrian and bicycle paths?
Development Features: “Minimum of 10% open space in subdivisions. . .” Comp plan or zoning
ordinance? Should there be mention of trails or bicycle/pedestrian connectivity here?
Purpose: We’re not sure if “workforce housing” is the new term for affordable, diverse housing
opportunities, but wonder if Carmel wants to specify whom they are identifying. Why teachers,
fire fighters and police officers? Why not retail salespeople, roofers and nurses’ aides? We’d
recommend the deletion of the items in parenthesis.
3rd Photo: The caption on the lower picture singles out an existing building. We’d recommend
the use of outside-of-Carmel examples when the document is being critical.
Development Features: “Strip development is discouraged.” Even if the strip of shops abuts the
street?
Land Uses, 4th Bullet: Fourth bullet – isn’t this a zoning ordinance issue? We’d make the same
comment about the items under Structure Features on this page.
Development Features: same comments as previous about strip commercial development.
Structure Features: Does this belong in the comp plan or zoning ordinance?
Structure Orientation on Site: Same as above. Detail that in our opinion belongs in the zoning
ordinance.
Keystone: does this need section to be updated due to recent engineering and construction?
Design Guidelines, 5th bullet: A definition of corporate “branding” architecture is needed.
US 31: Requiring 6-10 story buildings? In comp plan?
US 31: Map – should mixed use be indicated? Retail nodes? What is Transition-Sensitive
Residential?
Old Meridian: Mixed Use Design Guidelines These too specific in our opinion, even delving into
sign specifications (e.g. “Ground floor tenants should be allowed 1 ½ square feet of sign area
per lineal foot of building signage. . .” How will this language be integrated into the new sign
ordinance?
Feeling that the document is frequently too specific to particular sites or developments.
Lots of vague terminology and definition issues remain.
The Chamber supports the inclusion of the encouragement of transit nodes in new
neighborhoods.
We are aware that the Pittman property (east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street) is
being considered as a potential special study area under the far reaching Comprehensive Plan
for Carmel. Consistent with the vote at the September 23rd meeting, we strongly believe that
the property should remain residential, and therefore strongly oppose changing its classification
to a Special Study Area.
I am the authorized representative of Conseco Inc, dealing with the 48 acres at the southwest
corner of 116th and Springmill Rd. I have been following the C3 Plan meetings through our real
estate agents, Resource Commercial Real Estate and our legal counsel, Riley Bennett & Egloff,
who have attended all of the Special Committee's meetings. I have also had dicussions with
other owners in the area, in particular Steve Pittman. It is our understanding that the
Committee has recommended that there be a "Special Study" to address the Springmill
Corridor. We couldn't agree more with the proposed approach. We also think it is essential that
Conseco's 48 acres be included in the "Special Study" process. It is important for its inclusion
due to its location and size. We also hope that we can bring value to the Committee through
our active paricipation in the Study process. Conseco and the Committee believably share the
same objective of maximizing the opportunity along the Springmill Corridor.
I am a resident of Spring Mill Place subdivision. I have been unable to attend the recent
planning meetings due to the fact that I am currently serving overseas on active duty for the
military.
All of page 6 is new?
Last Paragraph: The plan "will require effort and support by residents." How will you know you
have the support of residents? Many, many Carmel West residents have pretty clearly
communicated to us and we to you thir strong desires to maintain a density of 1.0 u/a and no
commercial areas beyond the existing ones at Meridian St., Michigan Rd. and the Village of
WestClay. Surveys and several well-attended meetings were held for the existing 2020 Plan.
Why aren't these methods being used again?
A section in the previous draft on page 8 was omitted, which we believe should be included:
"The West Carmel district…has the least developed road network…[Additionally, it is] unlike
East Carmel, where many neighborhoods were built with connecting streets to adjacent
developments or stubbed streets to undeveloped areas." Traffic does not have, and cannot
have nearly as many options in at least the southern part. This important defining characteristic
should be listed and considered for planning purposes.
2nd Paragraph is problematic. It cites "pride of place and rural living" as "historical," while
stating that valueas have now turned to "amenities." For the vast majority of Carmel West
residents, there has been no such change. Carmel West have always fought hard to keep
density low and it's hugely important to a great many residents today, not just "historically." Yet
that's not stated anywhere. It must be clearly stated or it's not "our" Comp Plan and it will not
have the support of the Carmel West residents.
Obj. 1.4, second sentence: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. The previous
version said “Avoid unplanned or harsh contrasts in height, building orientation, character, land
use, and density.” Now it is “Discourage.” Not an improvement and it should be changed back.
Obj. 1.5: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. Are we really saying that essentially
we always want to see mixed use in commercial areas? Is there no concern that there may be
a limit to demand for this or that the desire for this be more specific to areas that contain, or will
contain, typical urban shopping and entertainment venues—as in not in a suburban areas that
want to be sururban.
Obj. 2.3: The study on housing choices should have already been done and it should help drive
the Comp Plan, not the other way around. The population chart on page 12 clearly shows this
is an area of families—the age groups that are the largest include 35-54 year-olds and their
children. Please ensure the new Comp Plan does not overallocate residences for other age
groups, that it takes care that their location suits the needs of the people who would chose
them, and it reflects the studies that show that the large age group for families wants surburban
living, not urban living. Give us our peace and quiet.
Policy 1 Into: The last sentence before Objective 1.1 states, “This model [form-based] is more
permissive of mixed used nodes and requires greater sensitivity to transitions between differing
land classifications.” How will this be truly accomplished? What guarantees do residents have
that it won’t be at the whim of changing faces at DOCS, the Plan Commission, and City Council
and however they want to interpret “permissive” and “sensitivity” at that time? How do we trust
this, when Carmel West residents turned out in droves for the 2020 Plan to insist on a density of
1 u/a, but we’ve had to keep fighting over this? Now you’re asking us to “trust” on this issue
when we’re once again fighting to keep the character of the area the same as it was when we
decided to invest in our homes in the area. This isn’t just a wording problem—it’s a problem
with the concepts contained in the Plan. If this is only a problem with Carmel West, then apply
the concepts east of Meridian and give plans for Carmel West enough structure and limitations
that this issue goes away. Here are examples that feed fears about future “insensitivity” being
imposed:
1. Objective 1.4, 2nd sentence: The previous version said “Avoid unplanned or harsh contrasts
in height, building orientation, character, land use, and density.” Now it is “Discourage.” Not an
improvement and it should be changed back.
2. Objective 1.5: Discussed (but contributes to the fear).
3. Objective 3.2. Discussed & modified (but contributes to fear--implies this should be utilized
everywhere at all times, even in low-density residential areas.)
4. Objective 3.4 has the same problem as Objective 3.2
5. Objective 4.1. Discussed. Change terminology for “traditional neighborhood design
principals.”
6. We understand the benefits stated in Objective 4.5, but please understand the benefits of not
having commercial uses of any kind nearby. Carmel West residents are smart and know what
benefits are most important to them and chose the area specifically because of the benefits of
not including retail amongst neighborhoods. This is the most problematic Objective in the
document.
We’d suggest an Objective be added stating the importance of maintaining areas for traditional
suburban residences.
Obj. 3.2: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed, even though discussed and modified
to add the words “where appropriate” at the end of the first sentence.
Obj. 3.4: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. Has the same problem as Objective
3.2
Obj. 4.1: states a desire for “traditional neighborhood design principals, in all neighborhoods
including…..estate, suburban or urban.” So we’re stating that more Villages of WestClay (VWC)
are the goal anywhere in Carmel? Approval of the VWC was given with the promise, often
restated, that the VWC would be the exception in Clay West. This objective violates that
promise and CWIC2 can guarantee a huge uprising from Carmel West residents over this.
Obj. 4.5: Feeds fears about "insensitivity" being imposed. We understand the benefits stated in
Objective 4.5, but please understand the benefits of not having commercial uses of any kind
nearby. Carmel West residents are smart and know what benefits are most important to them
and chose the area specifically because of the benefits of not including retail amongst
neighborhoods. This is the most problematic Objective in the document.
Obj. 5.2: Does this mean Carmel would make changes to Land Classifications without going
through a Comp Plan revision? Please no, and please tell us it would not just be a 10-day
notice with a Plan Commission hearing, meeting, approval, and repeat in City Council. That is
not nearly enough warning and time for input for making such a drastic change.
Obj. 6.2: states “the community will identify appropriate character goals, subareas, and
neighborhoods for…West Carmel.” West Carmel already knows what those are and we keep
stating them. Please do as this objective states: respect our values and help uphold them.
Policy 6: “Community character” is cited in various places and has its own section under Part 1,
Policy 6, page 20. When asked where we live, most residents respond with “West Carmel,”
giving their particular subdivision only when nailing location down further. As written, this
document is a threat to the highly valued sense of “community character” that already exists in
Carmel West.
Obj. 1.1: We’ve heard the argument that if you can’t really see the homes as you drive down the
road, it doesn’t really matter how many homes are in the subdivision. That’s not an argument
we buy and it is not what we want. The only way this works is if a significantly large open space
is mandatory, not “considered.”
Obj. 1.2: Neighborhood service nodes are not compatible with the reason people chose to
invest in their homes in a community of large lot homes. It makes Objectives 2.1 and 3.1
unachievable.
Obj. 4.2: Neighborhood service nodes are not compatible with the reason people chose to
invest in their homes in a community of large lot homes. It makes Objectives 2.1 and 3.1
unachievable.
Development Features: Add, “including passive enjoyment of nature” to the last one, “Promote
recreation.”
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications: How compatible is Suburban Residential, 4.9 u/a with a
1.0 u/a? Would you want a 5 times as dense neighborhood behind your house? In Carmel
West, people chose a low-density residential area, not just a low-density subdivision. Remove
this.
Conditional Fit: “Attached Residential” has a density of 7.0 u/a and is too much a difference
from 1.0 u/a. Remove this.
Appropriate Adjacent Classifications: Delete Suburban Residential, Neighborhood Service
Node, and Community Vitality Node. A change in density next door from a 1.2 to 4.9 is way too
extreme for people in West Carmel who want to live in a low-density residential area. And
again, West Carmel residents chose to live away from typical urban features provided by even a
“Neighborhood Service Node,” let alone a “Community Vitality Node” that could have 80,000 sq.
ft. of retail!
Development Features: Define “designed open space.” Is it usable?
Purpose: Amend to read, “Establish and protect housing opportunities for people who desire
low density or subdivision living.
Geographic location: Strike “West.” This doesn’t exist outside of the Village of WestClay and
Stanford Park, which were approved as “exceptions. They certainly are a very small piece of
the area. It is not typical.
Intensity/Density: Add the phrase “where there is good connectivity” to the end. Reduce the
top number to at least 3.9. Urban residential starts at 4.0, so nothing is served by the overlap.
At 3.9, equal sized lots would be approximately 1/5 of an acre. That is “urban”, not “suburban,”
particularly in Carmel West.
Purpose: Amend to read, “To establish housing opportunities for people who desire to have
less yard & to enjoy closer proximity to their neighbors.
Suburban Res: In 2006, Plan Commissioners voted 6 to 1 to divide this classification further.
That should be reflected in this draft.
Geographic Location: This needs to be written so as to exclude new locations in Carmel West.
Intensity/Density: 1 mile apart in Carmel West is far more than the area desires—and permitting
these on every non-subdivision intersection in a low-density area makes their viability highly
questionable. These adversely affect the character and desirability of Carmel West.
Conditional Fit: Strike “Suburban Residential.” Strike Low Intensity Suburban Residential from
“Conditional Fit.” People greatly fear that the areas identified as Suburban Residential on the
maps will be used to insert these in Carmel West.
Geographic Location: This needs to be written so as to exclude new locations in Carmel West.
These are incredibly too urban for the character of the area (80,000 sq. ft.! and 6 u/a). These
destroy the very reason most people invested in their homes in Carmel West.
The map identifies an “Enhanced Sidewalk,” but where is the descriptor of what that is?
“Location” for Community Vitality Node says it is most appropriate near major thoroughfares.
Michigan Rd is a major thoroughfare and is designed for the truck traffic that a large commercial
area requires. Towne Road is not planned to become a Michigan Rd and the required truck
traffic would change the quality of life for those near Town Road and for those driving through
on their way to and from their homes in the area.
Carmel west of Springmill Rd. currently averages approx. 1.22 u/a. South of 116th St. averages
approx. 1.05 u/a. while north of 116th St. averages approximately 1.28 u/a.
East Carmel has 10 parks & river greenway. Central has 5 & Monon Greenway. West has 1
City park & 1 County park. Why aren’t we identifying where the next park should go before
there is no land left?
Except for where the map correctly classifies currently existing development/zoning, all land
west of Springmill Rd needs to be zoned Estate Residential.
Except for where the map correctly classifies currently existing development/zoning, all land
west of Springmill Rd needs to be zoned Estate Residential. Estate Residential is in keeping
with the character of the area, in keeping with the current zoning that people believed they were
getting when they invested in their homes, and in keeping with what the vast majority of the
residents in the area strongly desire
If this classification remains, the to-be-expected increase in intensity of use would result in
pressure to change intensity of use on surrounding land.
Reducing the top density to 1.5 u/a is helpful, but the intent is in conflict with the plan for
incentives. With a zoned density of 1.5 u/a, any development of any quality could be developed
at 1.5 u/a. Incentives would not have any value, since they only work if the developer gains
something he otherwise could not do. If the density is 1.5 u/a but density is used as an
incentive, it can be expected that some developments would end up closer to the 1.9, even
though that supposedly is not the intent.
Since the Community Vitality Node would allow this area to become much more intense than
ever planned, this land does not fit this category. While the approved plan may be larger than
the next lower classification, Neighborhood Service Node, reclassifying it to NSN would be
much less apt to result in Brenwick asking for a new plan that changes what has already been
approved. Neighborhood Service Node is also much more in keeping with the approval it was
granted and promises made by City Council to not allow this area affect surrounding properties.
Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: East side of Towne Rd from about
136th to 141st. Every surrounding subdivision has a density of less than 1.42 with an average
of 1.33. Suburban Residential would almost quadruple the density. Where’s the compatibility?
How would you like to own a home that now backs up to this drastic change from what was
expected.
Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: Land south of 116th between
Michigan Rd & Shelborne Rd. Proposed as Suburban Residential, with density between 2.0 to
4.9 two subdivisions:
a. Includes homes with acreage as well as two subdivisions with very low
densities—Brandywine (0.61 u/a) and Woodhaven (0.77 u/a). Each was built when lots were
required to be a minimum of 1 acre and the expectation was 1 acre lots for the area. The
expectation for large lots was reinforced with the 2020 Comp Plan.
b. Directly east of Brandywine is Bridleborne at a density of 0.40 u/a and English Oaks with
1.26 u/a. To the south is a church and then a fire station on the corner. While these uses are
different from the surrounding developments, their abundance of green space and low intensity
of use is much more compatible than a subdivision with a 4.9 density.
Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: West of Towne Road abutting the
Village of WestClay is the Fortune Property, now platted as Trillium at a density of 1.76. The
approved density clearly fits the Low Intensity Suburban Residential category. Why isn’t it
labeled as such? The ground is still bare so this category could easily result in Adams &
Marshall vacating that approved plan and returning with a new plan at 4.9 u/a that would then
legally have to be approved. This classification violates the promises of containing the VWC’s
density within its property and no more transitioning. City Council upheld this promise when
they approved the project only after lowering the density to 1.76. This is just completely
inappropriate.
Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: Northwest corner of Towne Road &
131st (Guerrero Property). We’ve had this fight before—you know the issues. As part of its
approval, the VWC was promised to be the exception in the area and was promised to be
contained. Zoning this as Suburban Residential violates the promises and should not be done.
Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West at: Two locations along 146th St. Density
of adjoining subdivisions averages approx. 1.48 u/a. The proposed density is about 3.5 times
as high. Where is the compatibility?
Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West in 5 locations. Details will be provided
when everyone can look at the map.
The VWC area with this classification has a lot of acres with no buildings. This invites Brenwick
to return with a new ordinance using the new classification. The only limit on the commercial
intensity is “the maximum building envelope, maximum impervious surface, and on-site parking
requirements.” We do not believe the City really wants a Merchants Square or West Carmel
Center (examples cited) at this location. Area residents do not. This area is a red-hot button
issue for area residents and increasing the intensity will heat the flames for many residents.
The VWC area with this classification is not compatible with the surrounding area that currently
fits Low Intensity Suburban Residential. Community Vitality Node is not listed as an appropriate
adjacent classification.
This classification would also permit residential density up to 10 u/a, surrounded by homes at a
much, much lower density.
VOWC Still Urban Residential West of Towne Rd. Should be Suburban Residential
VWC’s Urban Residential: CWIC2 support’s Dee Fox’s comment—inadvertently omitted in our
submission. Undeveloped land remains so Brenwick could return with a new ordinance
requesting much higher density, using this classification as the intent of the new Comp Plan.
There is a description for Residential Parkway 2-lane and Residential Parkway 4-lane, but these
are not distinguished on the map. Please identify where each is planned.
Carmel West has a strong sense of community and character, which is a draw for many people.
Most people invested in their homes in Carmel West specifically because the zoning promised
the area would be low-density residential and that commercial uses would not intrude. They
opted out of “urban” life. Many couldn’t afford to buy and build on acreage, but want space
between our neighbors, no commercial intrusions, plenty of greenspace and no “walls” of close-
together houses when we’re out and about.
CWIC2 acknowledges that the needs of residents that live along thoroughfares must be
balanced against the needs of the greater community for efficient and effective traffic
movement. We support connectivity as a guiding principle and roadways constructed to handle
the traffic demand. We support the bike lanes since we know all too well how much one bike
rider can back up traffic on the current roadways. Gridlock benefits no one.
We do ask that you do everything possible to minimize the impact on the affected neighbors.
Please consider carefully the following:
1. Can the medians required for trees be reduced while still maintaining healthy trees?
Perhaps some good street trees require less space.
2. Are side paths to take 10 feet each side of the roads or is this for both? (Totaling the
numbers in the illustrations does not come to the right-of-way numbers). We support side paths
and do not wish them to be too narrow, but neither do we wish them to be “expansive.” Ten foot
each side seems much beyond what is needed.
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special
study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the
southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted
to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was
discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the
conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at
the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a
second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and
expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the
agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did
not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
I am a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision and would like to state my opposition to the
creation of a special study area for the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th
Street to 116th Street. The area now being considered for special study was discussed on
September 23 and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. I am in favor of
leaving this area designated as residential, and considering future project proposals at the time
they are presented to the Plan Commission. Creating a special study area is unnecessary and
only prolongs the process to the advantage of developers who ultimately want this area
changed from residential to commercial. This change would clearly be to the detriment of the
homeowners in our subdivision. Please strongly consider this request to maintain this area
designated as residential.
Policy 2: This is great. Edge cities are distinct from traditional bedroom suburbs. I would only
suggest a bit of elaboration that edge cities have been a modern trend and that their evolution
and distinct nature from traditional suburbs is likely to be further enhanced by economic trends
like higher fuel prices, etc.
West Central: I think the Village of West Clay needs to be more directly addressed throughout
the various policies reflected in The West Clay Section
Figures should reflect the entire township and show growth trends
I suggest a reference to the likely timetable for "build out." I think that would dovetail well with
the discussion regarding the emergence of Carmel as an Edge City, beyond a traditional
residential suburb.
I would like to express my concern regarding the "Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan
C3-Plan" ,US 31 Corridor, Part 5 : Critical Corridors and Subareas, specifically page 88 which
requires 6 -10 story buildings between Illinois Street & Pennsylvania Street. We all understand
these buildings will be for the owners highest & best use and will be 10 story buildings,due to
the cost of the land. Our sub-division "Spring Mill Place" would be a Transition-Sensitive
Residential area (pg. 89) right next to 10 story buildings.(location N. of 106th Street/E. of
Springmill Road.).
I feel height restrictions must be set for the US 31 Corridor next to residential housing.These
heights should be set at two story maximum. We need a buffer zone. We do not want to be the
buffer zone for 10 story buildings.
My name is David Roach, and I am a resident in the Spring Mill Place subdivision.
2 years later the revision process is moving on quickly from where it left off. Many residents are
unaware that the process has restarted and/or that the City's revisions would drastically change
the 2020 Plan protections they relied on.
A few public meetings on the revision in 2006 may have met the "letter of the law", but they do
not broadly reach the time-crunched public who have a hard time keeping up with the details
and react to changes.
Fulfillment of the mandate - Public Involvement: Absent is the extensive public participation and
surveys on what residents wanted that formed the current 2020 plan.
How is this time different from 2006? On this issue of such importance to the public's future, the
city should again pursue an accurate read on public opinion via a comprehensive survey and/or
district citizen groups actively involved in developing the Plan.
In 2006, the stated reason for the abrupt halt was a flawed process and insufficient public
participation. All agreed that the process was very rushed.
"Form-based" regulations do not negate the non-visual impacts of inappropriate uses.
"Freshen" is deceptively inaccurate. The 2020 Plan would be totally changed by the City's new
focus on urbanizing, higher densities, and placing commercial uses in residential areas.
Suburban residents, Carmel's foundation, feel threatened.
Comprehensive Plan Update Objectives: Planning and zoning are not supposed to be market-
based.
Drafting and Public Input - The public had little time to review the full draft prior to the one open
house. How many could not attend? Will all oral/written comments be condensed for public
review, including those from developers?
If easily amendable at any time, will there be public notice and overview of all changes? How
will the public ever keep up, or be able to count on what the Plan says?
Language in the 2020 Plan that is protective of residential communities and "the quality of life
that attracted them", is now conspicuously missing.
Why don't the bulleted documents include the 116th St. Overlay and US 421 studies?
South Central Carmel-No mention of west boundary employment area(US 31)
(West Carmel): End of 2nd paragraph, Change "residential" amenities to "recreational".
Last Paragraph: Add "community and" regional destination. The Village of WestClay should not
be mapped as a Community Vitality Node. It is a neighborhood-serving.
West Carmel Characteristics: Largest district with fewest parks. One city and one county park,
in the center, were largely donated in response to overdevelopment concerns. Especially w/
146th St developing, the city needs to promptly obtain park land on the north end, while land is
still available.
Objective Profile: Woodlots-A goal should be to strengthen cutting limitation and replacement
requirements for mature trees.
Population Growth-Does chart include entire Township? Carmel is built on families w/ children,
who came for nonurban lifestyles and schools. Why do these revisions focus on urbanizing and
on developing for everyone but them?
All charts are 8 yrs out of date.
Education-All suburbs and Hamilton County have higher graduation rates than Indianapolis.
Carmel now strives to morph into a city, which its suburban residents fled. Increased population
means facing the need for a second high school.
Development Trends: The upward trend in Town Homes/Multi-Family units is due to City officials
actively encouraging them.
Golf courses-Most are under pressure to be developed, or are private. Sadly, few public
courses will exist.
Omit Mohawk Hill Golf Club
The current solution to crowded schools seems to be to increase density, but build new
developments that aim to exclude children!
This is where the whole focus is changed from the 2020 Plan, so as to increase density and add
commercial development to the suburbs. If "the public can base their expectations" on this Part,
then the content needs to be based on the public's desire to protect existing chosen lifestyles
and neighborhoods.
Obj. 1.3, 1.4, 1.5: Objectives of Carmel government and its suburban residents are not the
same. Inserting "mixed use" into suburban areas makes a harsh contrast inevitable, and
effective transition difficult. Locate such nodes now, so that the decision is not left to developers,
and so that homebuyers know what to expect. Brace for many fights over what constitutes
"unsuitable commercial development." Most residential areas formed as havens from the effects
of commercial development, and consider all of it to be unsuitable.
Obj. 1.6: How does one determine which neighborhoods are not subject to redevelopment?
Those not on the list will see home values plummet.
Obj. 2.2, 2.3: The few affordable housing options are being "redeveloped" to become
expensive. Many "transplants" from other areas appreciate the chance to get more spacious
homes/yards for less money in Indiana.
Policy 1 Intro: Land use based planning protected homeowners from unwanted commercial and
mult-story bldgs next to single-family homes.
Policy 2 Intro: Carmel has always been a suburb w/ a "desirable quality of life." Other realities,
though, are its image is snobbish, it is unaffordable to many, it lacks "non-white-collar" jobs, and
it is unlikely to be able to support public transportation if Indianapolis can't.
Obj. 3.10: Transition problems, especially along residential Spring Mill Road.
Obj. 3.2: Add to the end of first sent. "in urban core and commercial areas". Suburban residents
have chosen not to live near urban 24/7 "vitality."
obj. 3.5: Exclude increased density from the list of incentives.
Obj. 4.1: ALARMING. This type of development does not belong everywhere! Do not include
suburban areas in statements of urban objectives, especially vague and general statements.
Policy 4 Intro: Subdivisions are neighborhoods. What "outside destabilizing forces"?
Obj. 4.3: Establishing neighborhood identity based on physical boundaries has basically been
done by acknowledging 4 unique districts.
Obj. 4.4: This new. Explain.
Obj. 4.5: To the end of the first sent., add "in context to appropriate locations". Agreement from
surrounding homeowners should be required. Suburbanites purposely fled the traffic, trucks,
noise, and light of commercial development.
Obj. 4.6: Estate and large lot owners will move away from commercial development. Zoning
exceptions will be sought for the nearby "compromised" properties. Effective transition is
questionably possible, one mile apart is too close. In West Carmel's one-mile road grid, that
would be one on every corner.
Obj. 5.1: The city's "vision" would alter/negate the chosen lifestyle of its residents, based on
unproven trends.
Obj. 5.2: How will the public be informed and have input? Limit how often it can be revised.
Frequently and readily revisable means no rest, control, or security for the public.
Policy 5 Intro: "Fear of change" has been added! It's the routine label for residents who
disagree with any of the city's plans. Certain changes are justifiably opposed as plain bad ideas
that would adversely affect many people. It is the city's push to imitate Traditional
Neighborhoods that is "based on the models that were successful 50 or more years ago/" Even
the real ones that remain are dying, b/c circumstances of both residential life and business are
very different now.
Obj. 5.7: Again, what reward? Not increased density! The City seems to equate "sprawl" w/ its
foundation of single-family homes on lots that offer some privacy.
Obj. 6.2: Exactly who is "the community" (Carmel government?), and why should they be able
to dictate "character goals" for the different districts? We are not Disneyland. Redevelopment
(Old Town) and new development should not be treated the same way.
Obj. 6.3: "Significant" landscaping has been removed! Even the most attractive landscaping is
not effective if there is not enough of it.
Obj. 6.4: Add "preservation". Carmel does not do enough to protect mature trees from
development, and their replacements do not compare in size or number.
Obj. 6.7: West Carmel has request buried utility lines, and it could be done in conjunction w/
new road work. I've been told that it is expensive and that the utility company is reluctant b/c of
the extra labor. Is that the end of the discussion?
Policy 6 Intro: West Carmel's character is already establised as uniquely very low density
residential, mostly without urban intrusion. This Plan threatens to change, rahter than protect it.
Obj. 7.10: Be mindful that windmills, large solar panels, electrical utilities, water towers, and cell
towers are eyesores in residential aeras. Take great care in locating and screening.
Obj. 7.3: Define "small scale" and "large scale". Retroactive?
Obj. 7.9: Carmel needs to address the mercury levels in CFL's & how to dispose of them safely
before "jumping on that bandwagon"
Obj. 7.9: Encourage the city and residents to minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides, and
lawn chemicals.
Obj. 1.2: "Allow" has been changed to "support and encourage"! (mention new "support
centers", too.) Locate nodes NOW, and get public approval. To the "strictly regulated" list, add
hours of operation, buffering, uses, and signage. The impact of these nodes is more than visual.
Obj. 3.2: Put a limit on density that transitions to residential. Impacts of increased density are
not just visual.
Obj. 3.3: This intent to expand and intensify areas "sold" to the public as small "neighborhood-
serving", is one major reason why so many residents do not want them.
Obj. 4.2: Discourage "residential opportunities" near the mine. The problems were predictable,
and houses already there should not have been approved.
Obj. 4.5: Add "locate and design it so as to minimally impact surrounding residences."
Obj. 1.2: Add "buffering, use of transitional design", as was done for North Central Carmel.
Obj. 1.5: Since the "intense fringe areas" are limited to 5.0 units/acre adjacent to single-family
residential, then the Suburban Residential density (up to 4.9 u/a) applied to the entire South
Central residential area is too high.
Obj. 2.1, 2.2: Threats of redevelopment are causing residents to panic and leave. Busy roads
are not a buffer.
Obj. 2.3: Should this say "west" rather than "east"
General Comments: Suburban (and especially West Carmel) residents have chosen not to live
close to high density and commercial development. Estate owners will move away from it. West
Carmel is already conveniently and adequately served. Any location issues need to be settled
now. Otherwise, there will be a fight over every proposal. Also, "PUDs" still need to be
addressed in West Carmel.
Obj. 1.1, 1.2: Increase open space requrement soon, before buildout. Replace "Allow" wilth
"Consider". Distinguish between Neighborhood Support Centers and Neighborhood Service
Nodes. The size and density of the latter are especially not appropriate in West Carmel. To the
"strictly regulated", ADD hours of operation, uses, signage, and buffering.
Obj. 2.1: This "sub-area" is the current low density zoning of all of West Carmel.
Obj. 2.2: Custom homes require higher-income buyers, who generally do not desire to be near
higher densities and/or commercial development. "Accessory dwellings" is vague. Are they
prohibited now? Can they be rentals?
Obj. 3.1: The last sent. Is STILL a problem. "Residential intensity" has unwanted effects in West
Carmel, whether it is visible or not.
Obj. 3.2 Insert "including" before the word "along".
Obj. 3.4: Are "institutional" uses considered to be residential? Why no mention of the 116th St.
Overlay already in place? There is much concern about the fate of the southwest corner of
116th St. and Towne Rd.
Obj. 4.2: Leave out entirely, or replace "Establish" with "Consider". They are not needed or
wanted here, are not compatible with preserving rural character, and would not significantly
prevent driving. They would struggle to survive and would add large truck traffice, noise, light,
and trash problems.
Obj. 5.1: Emphasize keeping road changes in character with the area.
Obj. 5.4: Replace "WestClay Secondary Core" with "The Village of WestClay". As per page 42,
the Village of WestClay commercial core is a "Secondary Core" in form only.
A statement is needed that the listed "Appropriate Adjacent Classifications" are not meant to
encourage these uses other than where identified on the Land Classification Map, and that their
inclusion does not suggest automatic approval. Otherwise, they will invite disputes.
Introduction: Appropriate Adjacent - Conditional Fit is based on only "orientation, transitions, and
architecture"? What about use, height, and density?
Best Fit - Move "Suburban Residential" to Conditional.
Density - This is mainly Northwest Clay on the Map. The upper limit of 1.9 u/a is too high, and
does not reflect existing densities. It would raise the density to be in line with the Village of
WestClay exception, (where a .1 density increase added 70 extra houses). It would double the
current zoning, and would not reflect recent denial of 2 rezone proposals at that density.
Geographic Location - Why are no such areas shown for South Central Carmel on the Land
Classification map?
Open Space - "50% should be designed" was added. Why? Is it usable? Define both.
Best Fit - Add "Neighborhood Support Center". Move "Attached Residential (7 u/a or greater)",
and "Neighborhood Service Node (80,000 sq. ft., up to 6 u/a)" to Conditional Fit.
Conditional Fit - All of these would be very conditional, (allowing 6-14 u/a), especially next to the
lower end of this range (2-4.9 u/a). Employment Nodes allow up to 4 stories.
Density - Range is too broad. In 2006, Plan Commissioners voted 6-1 to further divide this
classification.
Geographic Location - What is the basis for applying up to 4.9 u/a to all of South Central and
East Carmel.
Best Fit - No mention of "Neighborhood Support Center". "Core Support", with no density limits,
should be moved to Conditional.
Conditional Fit - "Urban" 8 u/a could go next to "Suburban Res." 2 u/a??
Examples - To Village of WestClay, add "in form only". Its 2.1 u/a is nowhere near the "Urban"
density of 4-8 u/a, and therefore should not be classified "Urban" on the Map.
Open Space - "Suburban Res." (2-4.9 u/a) gets 20%, but "Urban" (4-8 u/a) is only 10%??
Dense developments need more open space, and there is none off-site/nearby for most of
these areas.
Attached Res: Density- Needs upper limit. In 2006, Commissioners voted 5-2 to cap it at 10 u/a.
DOCS wanted double that, to bring the community "in line with the market", and b/c lower
density=fewer amenities. (Planning and zoning should serve to prevent development from being
market-based, which would often be very unsuitable to an area. Otherwise, there is little point in
either.)
Best Fit- Move "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)", to conditional. No mention of "Neighborhood
Support Center".
Conditional Fit - Remove "Low Intensity Sub. Res." (1-1.9 u/a). Densities of the 2 classifications
are much too far apart.
Conditional Fit - Remove "Estate Residential".
Density - One mile is too close. Does the 7,500 sq. ft. (approx. 1/6 acre), include parking area?
Examples - Hard to find any in Carmel b/c suburban residents have chosen not to live next to
nonresidential uses.
Land Uses - Community centers, YMCA's, and most fitness centers are too big for this, and
would be traffic magnets.
Neighborhood Support Center (NEW): Purpose - These would negatively impact residential
areas by adding light, noise, signs, traffic, trash, and large trucks where they otherwise would
not be.
Structure Features: Mostly glass fronts look "urban", and would make "activities" totally visible.
Drive-throughs allowed?
Structure Orientation - Only visibility can be partially buffered. Cannot adequately buffer other
impacts listed above.
West Carmel - Not needed or wanted. The 1-mile road grid could put one on every corner.
Best Fit - Lower end of "Suburban Res." (2-4.9 u/a) would especially not be best fit. By
definition, "NSN's" should stand alone, to serve "unserved" areas; so remove "NSN" (chart page
44), and "CVN" (text & chart). Otherwise, the size limits on "NSN'S" become meaningless.
Conditional Fit- Remove "Regional Vitality Node (RVN)" and "Core Support". Same reason as
above. List "Core Support" under "CVN" and "RVN", not for "NSN". Remove "Low Intensity
Sub. Res. (1-1.9 u/a)", which is mainly Northwest Clay on the Map. The "NSN" 6 u/a equates to
"Urban Res. (4-8 u/a)", which is correctly not listed as an "Appropriate Adjacent Classification"
for "Low Intensity Sub. Res.".
Density - Up to 6 u/a is too high. Equivalent to the "Urban" range (4-8 u/a), it is not appropriate
for suburbs. It would just be a loophole to put higher density where it otherwise would not
permitted.
Land Uses - A "NSN" and a "Commercial Vitality Node (CVN)" differ mainly in size and
residential density. "NSN" allowable uses need to be much more limited and specific.
Structure Orientation - Again, nonvisual negative impacts cannot be adequately buffered from
residences. "Use" still matters more than "form" to the public. "Disguising" a non-residential use
to not look like what it is, does not negate the nonvisual impacts of living near it. The Village of
WestClay commercial "NSN" west of Towne Rd. is on the Map as a "CVN". That absolutely
needs to change.
The 80,000 sq. ft. per node, (about 1.84 acres), should be stated here to avoid confusion.
Parking included in that space?
West Carmel - These would not "preserve the estate character" or "reinforce rural character",
(page 25). Residents bought in Clay West to avoid living near high density and commercial
intrusion. Estate owners will move away from it.
Conditional Fit - "Suburban Res." should be included here.
Development Features - The Community-center-type uses of mega-churches would normally
fall under "NSN" or "CVN". Neither of those lists "Estate Res." as an appropriate adjacent fit, but
it is listed here. In "Conditional Fit" areas, those mixed-uses should be restricted to those that
serve the institution, not the general public.
Specify significant buffering of municipal facilities from residences.
Best Fit - Omit "NSN" for reasons stated earlier.
Community Vitality Node (CVN): Purpose - Omit "and neighborhood serving". It blurs the line
between those 2 classifications, which differ in size, density, and hopefully uses.
Conditional Fit - Lower end of "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)" would especially not be compatible.
"Core Support" is listed under "NSN" and "RVN", but not "CVN"? It should be listed under "CVN"
and "RVN", but not under "NSN".
Examples - On the Map, Merchants Square is a "RVN", and the Village of WestClay "NSN" is
incorrectly shown as a "CVN".
Geographic Location - With 10 u/a allowed, and no limit on commercial intensity, these are not
"most appropriate" near "minor" thoroughfares.
West Carmel - These should be limited to along Michigan Road.
Employment Node: Conditional Fit - "Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)" is a very questionable fit next
to 4 stories with densities up to 14 u/a.
Regional Vitality Node (RVN): Conditional Fit - Remove "NSN". If next to a "RVN" (or "CVN"), it
is no longer "neighborhood serving".
Conditional Fit - Replace "NSN" with "CVN".
Core Support: Best Fit- Since there are no residential or commercial limits on intensity, "Urban
Res. (4-8 u/a)" should move to Conditional.
Open Space - "Attached Res. (7 u/a & up)" requires 20% (half usable), but "Core Support (no
density limits)" only requires 15% (no mention of usable)?
Land Uses & Examples: Add "Form Only" to both references to the Village of WestClay.
Residents are wary of attempts to classify it in any way that could expand its current restrictions.
Final paragraph, 1st sentence - The classifications on the Map have density ranges; therefore,
developers will assume that the Map establishes certain density rights.
Land Classification Map Description: 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence-This detailed map will be
"construed" that way. Everyone expects the Comprehensive Plan and zoning to match.
Collector Street-Define buffer planting.
Is an exit ramp planned at Towne Rd. and I-465, south of 96th?
Primary Parkway (Towne Rd, 116th, 131st, Keystone, & Hazel Dell) - I hope that the Primary
Priority of "Sensitive to context" means that Carmel does not intend to treat Towne Rd. or 116th
St. the same as Keystone or Hazel Dell. Such major streets would not be in keeping with the
character of West Carmel.
No median is required here. Why should Towne Rd require a 40 ft greater Right of Way than
Shelborne Rd?
Secondary Arterial (Shelborne Rd, College, Carmel Dr, Oak Ridge Rd.)-The photo example is a
"Primary Parkway" on the map.
Primary Arterial-This is the widest, most intense street classification (more than Keystone's).
96th St is an odd choice, especially if the C3 Plan's intent is to preserve any residential
character there.
Residential Parkway 2 lane-Change Right of way to 100 feet.
Street Classification Chart: Add "Median sizes", "Sidewalks/Paths", & "Bicycle lanes".
Urban Collector St.-Change Right of Way from 55 to 66 feet.
On-Street Bicycle Lane: In 2006, it was stated that serious bicyclists would rather ride in the
street than use bike lanes, because they don't feel safe. Can changes be made to remedy that?
Otherwise, the lanes just take up space and add expense.
Bicycle & Pedestrian Classification Table: The description under "Off-Street Trail, Right of Way"
matches the Draft B language, but not the current language on page 72.
The map is on page 75; not 71.
Current Overlay Zones (Michigan Rd, 116th St., US 31, etc.) should be included and/or
referenced in the Comp. Plan.
Design Guidelines-Adequate buffering is questionably possible. A busy 4 lane road is not a
buffer, but is a problem in itself.
Design Guidelines-The last bullet statement seems to conflict with the state on page 77 that
says high density is not encouraged for the sake of establishing a transit system.
Design Guidelines-This Comp Plan Revision frequently refers to the need to protect and buffer
residential neighborhoods from commercial development; while at the same time, it encourages
putting more such land uses next to established residential neighborhoods.
Design Guidelines: Add, "lighting should be designed to not trespass into residential areas" (as
for Home Place, page 100).
"Preserve/Install Tree Canopy" is only shown for one tiny area, way north. Surely there are
more places. Trees should be installed along Illinois St. and along Spring Mill Rd. as a buffer.
Why is path only on the east side? (Keystone has paths on both sides.)
Discouraging ground floor offices and on-street parking conflicts with the Primary and
Secondary Core lists of ground floor office uses (pages 42,43), and also with Urban Streets that
allow on-street parking.
If form based code "replaces" the zoning ordinance, on what basis could an undesirable use be
denied?
Maps are on pages 98/99; not 94.
Multifamily Attached units look alike and are difficult for drivers to identify. Better to regulate size
of freestanding signs than to prohibit them.
To be consistent, the lower left column should use "stories", instead of "feet".
Why are drive-throughs prohibited in this mixed-use "Village", but are allowed in the less intense
Village of WestClay?
Home Place Subarea: Change "8" Story to "10" Story.
Primary Priorities-For 2 lane Residential and Primary Parkways, a minimum 16 ft median seems
unnecessary and excessive through residential areas. It would move the road too close to
adjacent homes.
Residential Parkway 2 or 4 lane: General Description-There are already many driveway
accesses on these roads. Reducing driveway access is not compatible with maintaining
"residential character".
The photo example of Residential Parkway 4 Lane, (Hazel Dell), is a larger "Primary Parkway"
on the map.
East Carmel - No mention of Keystone commercial area.
Have fire protection and earthquake resistance been planned for the increase in 10 story bldgs?
A density spreadsheet based on DOCS figures shows subdivision density averages west of
Spring Mill Road: All=1.18 u/a; North of 116th St.=1.28 u/a; South of 116th=1.05 u/a/ (If included
private landowners, area numbers would be even lower.)
Low intensity Sub. Res-Up to 1.9 u/a for most of Northwest Clay is still too high, for reasons
stated previously under that classification. Residents see no reason to raise density limits at all,
especially not beyond the levels of most existing developments. Since currently zoned density
limits, (1.0 u/a), have not been enforced, why would anyone believe that higher limits would be?
Doubling the density would also be incompatible with the estate character of West Carmel.
Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)-Inappropriate in West Carmel. The lower limit would double current
zoning. The upper limit is "Urban Res. (4-8 u/a), and 5 times the current zoning.
The VWC, (overall density 2.1 u/a), is NOT "Urban Res. (4-8 u/a)", as on the Map. That
classification could lead to more than doubling the currently permitted density of the portions
that are not yet built out. It would also further increase the rezoning requests from owners of the
surrounding, now "compromised", properties. The "transitioning" from the VWC was supposed
to stop with the Trillium development.
Village of WestClay (VWC) Zoning Changes-The commercial area west of Towne Rd. is a
promised "NSN", not an intense "CVN". It is located in an area of "Low Intensity Sub. Res.",
which is not listed as an Appropriate Adjacent Classification to a "CVN". The "CVN"
classification would open up possibilities for the VWC that its approval does not permit.
The DOCS has a list of how roads have been changed from the new 2020 Plan (2005),
including- 1) Urban Arterial (90') and Urban Collector (66') are new classifications. 2) Of the
other 9 classifications, 4 had Right of Ways (ROW) increased by 10 ft, and "Residential
Parkway 4 lane" increased by 20 ft. 3) In West Carmel- a. 7 roads increased from Collector
(2020 Plan=80' ROW, now 90'; no median) to Residential Parkway (2020 plan 4 lane=100'
ROW, now 120'; 12 foot median). b. 131st St. increased from Residential Parkway (120' ROW;
12 ft median) To Primary Parkway (140' ROW; 16' median.) c. 96th St. increased from
Residential Parkway (120' ROW; 12' median) To Primary Arterial (150' ROW; no median.)
Thoroughfare Plan Map: Residential Parkways on the map do not specify 2 or 4 lanes.
Address appropriate locations of Mega-churches that serve as Community Centers.
Address appropriate use of PUD's, and their amendment process.
Define "usable" open space. New trees in Carmel are routinely planted too close together.
How far along is the PC on developing residential quality/architectural standards?
References to Neighborhood Service Nodes should also include the new Neighborhood Support
Centers. (pg 22, obj. 1.2; page 24, obj. 1.1, etc.
Strictly define permitted uses in Neighborhood Support/Service Nodes
Adjust Table per discussion and to be "symmetrical"
US 31: I live in Spring Mill Place Subdivision. In review of the draft, Section Critical Corridors
and Subareas, Part 5, Section 2, the U.S. 31 Corridor, is the discussion of the
extensions/additions to Illinois Street from 106th northbound. This stretch of Illinois (from 106th
to 111th) will most certainly have an effect on property values in our neighborhood. While we all
have several concerns and are not overly thrilled to have a four-lane parkway, we realize the
inevitable.
Please allow this letter as a show of support for the detailed letter and concerns raised by
Spring Mill Place Subdivision resident Ron Houck.
Of significant concern is the “requirement for 6-10 story buildings” within that corridor. Having
visions of a parkway (that is necessary for tolerable north to south travel) as our eastern
boundary - nicely concealed by dense, mature trees, bushes and built up hills - is one thing, but
the thought of towering commercial buildings is a whole other issue. Please consider the lack of
need for cramming more offices in this area…We’ve got a wonderful and very desirable
neighborhood for western Carmel residents. I hope that the Plan Commission takes very
seriously, the impact that development in this area will have on the desirability and values of our
property. Providing necessary travel to the existing office parks/buildings along this corridor is
understandable. Cramming office space into small windows of land up against established
residential areas does not seem so necessary.
My name is Ed Skarbeck, I am a resident of Spring Mill Place Subdivision…In addition to the
email that I submitted below (on September 9, 2008), please accept this email as my input in
regards to the issues described below. As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am
opposed to the creation of a special study area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of
111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. From previous meetings and
communications, I was under the impression that this area would remain properly zoned as
residential. However, it has come to our attention that the area is being “revisited” at the
meeting tomorrow, 10/28/08. How many times are we going to have to go through this? I will
attend tomorrow’s meeting and, again, support the unanimous position of our neighborhood to
strongly oppose the re-zoning of this area. Please note, that I am in full support of the detailed
emails and communications that Ron Houck has provided you in regards to the many issues we
are dealing with in the changes proposed to our surrounding neighbors and areas.
Comprehensive and Thoroughfare Plan for SW Clay – By October 25, 2007, Carmel shall
initiate a process by which the existing Comprehensive and Thoroughfare Plan for the
Annexation Territory will be made available for review and revision as necessary and advisable.
Public meetings will be held in the Annexation Territory for input, prior to any changes being
made. No decision to build or expand any road in the Annexation Territory other than Illinois
Street or Commerce Drive from its current size or character will be made prior to January
2012… This last sentence (1) shall not prohibit Carmel from accepting roads that are dedicated
to Carmel by a developer; and (2) shall not apply to the addition of a turning lane, which may be
required by the City of Carmel with respect to a new development or new construction.
As residents of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, we are opposed to the creation of a special
study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th St. to the
southern border of Spring Lakes Estates.
Design Guidelines, 8th bullet: Concerning "Prepare for mass transit line", this is scary as it was
origianlly planned for the Keystone Ave corridor. You are already changing Meridian corridor to
handle the truck traffic from revised Keystone corridor. Please do not overwhelm the Illinois St
corridor.
I remain opposed to the Meridan corridor/Illinois St collector as it is a strong financially
rewarding project for Carmel and the major corporate developers while adversely impacting the
few original homeowners. We dramatically lose our home appreciation while the adjecent land
owners and developers and the city of Carmel have huge financial gains. There should be
financial consideration to these original homeowners. There should be sufficient $ available to
help these homeowners.
US 31: I have been a resident of Spring Mill Place (east of Springmill Rd between 106 and 116
st) since 1980 and have attended and sometimes spoken concerning the re- zoning of this
corridor. Concerning "Respect transition and buffering agreements with adjacent subdivisions" it
was agreed to in last meeting to have buildings no higher than 6 stories easy of our
development and that the buffer zone would consist of extra width with mounding with both
deciduous and evergreen trees.
We anticipate that these agreements will remain.
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision since 1981, I am opposed to the creation of a
special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to
the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely
devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was
discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the
conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections.
US 31: I strongly protest that the corridor between Meridian and Illinois Street at 106-111
Streets is designated as a 6-10 story employment corridor that will overshadow our
neighborhood. Please remove that designation from this stretch of the corridor.
Illinois Street from 106th to 111th Streets will abut the east side of my neighborhood, Spring Mill
Place. Many residents of this subdiision attended nearly two years' of meetings on this topic at
City Hall, and reached agreement with the City that was recorded as a Resolution that is
inconsistent with the current rendering of Illinois Street for this segment. Please refer to the
Resolution rather than discarding those years of work.
Please express my strong opposition to housing developments included in the Comprehensive
Plan update along the Meridian - Springmill corridor. West Carmel is grossly lacking in
commercial mixed use developments. More housing does not benefit residents of the west
side. A commercial mixed use development such as restaurants, shops, etc. would be the ideal
choice for this side of town. My family and I must travel to the north side of 146th Street or 421
to eat, shop, etc. Commercial uses for the area would provide the greatest benefit to residents
of western Carmel.
ADWAY IMPROVEMENT
Please express my strong opposition to housing developments included in the Comprehensive
Plan update along the Meridian - Springmill corridor. West Carmel is grossly lacking in
commercial mixed use developments. More housing does not benefit residents of the west
side. A commercial mixed use development such as restaurants, shops, etc. would be the ideal
choice for this side of town. My family and I must travel to the north side of 146th Street or 421
to eat, shop, etc. Commercial uses for the area would provide the greatest benefit to residents
of western Carmel.
I currently work in the high end residential home building and development market. In the
marketing and sales of our high end subdivisions on the West side of Carmel I am continually
asked about the nearest retail services/convenience area(s) on the West side of Carmel. Many
buyers who are looking to move into Carmel from other parts of the country have expectations
that there would be commercial conveniences in close proximity to their residences. They are
often discouraged at the lack of diversity and uses west of Meridian. It is for that reason that I
encourage you to plan for a special area West of Meridian that would include such services as
offices, retail uses including grocery options, hospitality, medical, etc. It is apparent to me that
the best place to create such a node would be in the area of 116th and US31, West to Spring
Mill Rd. Housing is not an appropriate or best use for this area.
I currently work in the high end residential home building and development market. In the
marketing and sales of our high end subdivisions on the West side of Carmel I am continually
asked about the nearest retail services/convenience area(s) on the West side of Carmel. Many
buyers who are looking to move into Carmel from other parts of the country have expectations
that there would be commercial conveniences in close proximity to their residences. They are
often discouraged at the lack of diversity and uses west of Meridian. It is for that reason that I
encourage you to plan for a special area West of Meridian that would include such services as
offices, retail uses including grocery options, hospitality, medical, etc. It is apparent to me that
the best place to create such a node would be in the area of 116th and US31, West to Spring
Mill Rd. Housing is not an appropriate or best use for this area.
We are homeowners on the west side of Carmel, and we would love to see some further
commercial development on our side of town. This side of town is clearly void of the amenities
like gas stations, restaurants and other conveniences. The obvious choices are the properties
on the northeast and southeast corners of Springmill Road and 116th St. That is a perfect
location for commercial development as it backs up to mid-size office buildings and a large
hospital and is a crossroads for residents travelling both east/west and north/south. I hope that
Carmel will have some foresight rather than looking into the past when making decision about
the future of this area.
We are homeowners on the west side of Carmel, and we would love to see some further
commercial development on our side of town. This side of town is clearly void of the amenities
like gas stations, restaurants and other conveniences. The obvious choices are the properties
on the northeast and southeast corners of Springmill Road and 116th St. That is a perfect
location for commercial development as it backs up to mid-size office buildings and a large
hospital and is a crossroads for residents travelling both east/west and north/south. I hope that
Carmel will have some foresight rather than looking into the past when making decision about
the future of this area.
I agree with Valerie's statements. If the decision was already made at the prior meeting to leave
the area designated as residential, there was no need to revisit that topic at the next meeting.
Our neighborhood's consensus is that we ALL would like to see that area left at its former
designation as residential.
US 31: I am interested in the proposed use for the east side of 116th Street and Springmill
Road. I believe it would be most useful if the plan allowed for commercial office uses, multi
family uses as well as a controlled amount of retail uses. This would include higher densities
which are consistent with current urban land planning techniques being implemented in our
community. I believe the residents of West Clay would benefit from the services and the overall
community would benefit from the growth along the Meridian corridor.
I am writing as a local real estate developer as well as a West Clay Township resident. I have
reviewed the proposed changes to the Land Use Plan and I am generally supportive of the plan
as proposed. The areas which I have particular interest is the proposed use for the Meridian
Heights Subdivision. This area has previously been slated to be commercial uses. Based on
Browning Investments propsed commercial development for this area and the overwhelming
majority of residents who have contracted to sell their property for commercial uses, it seems
only practical to leave the Comprehensive Plan in tact with a commercial use recommendation.
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special
study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the
southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The correct process is to leave the area designated
as residential, as agreed to
at the September 23rd meeting!
I am writing as a property owner in Old Town Carmel and as a member of the Carmel Clay
Historical Society. I recently became aware that the "history" chapter was removed from the
Carmel Clay Comprehensive Building Plan. I urge that the missing chapter be reinstated in the
plan to ensure the integrity of the architectural culture of the community be preserved.
I have attended several Carmel Comp plan meetings in the past and I thought the following
issue had been decided months ago. As a resident of Williams Mills subdivision, I am opposed
to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road
from South of 116th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. I have heard that
the meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area
now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was left
designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to
subsequent sections. I was dismayed to hear that at the October 14th meeting this same
area was revisited though it was not on the agenda and interested parties were not in
attendance. This is not fair to those people who thought these issues were finalized at the
previous meeting.
96th St: Corridor and area have changed. 96th backs up past Wild Cherry, commercial along
96th Street, decreased quality of life. Difficult to sell, difficult to stay.
My wife and I are homeowners in the Spring Mill Place subdivision (10989 Spring Mill Lane)
which subdivision is located due south of the Pittman Parcel. I am the principal real estate
broker in Lieberman and Associates, Inc. and have been a licensed real estate broker for 23
years. I have been involved in several feasibility studies of many residential and commercial
properties over many years as my father was a real estate developer. Obviously, my wife and I
and all home owners in Spring Mill Place are concerned about our future property values.
There are 3 references in C3 to LEED as follows; page 20, Objective 7.5, page 21, Objective 7.8 and page 21,
Objective 7.14. Please add Energy Star and Green Globes for alternative certification. Shown below is a link to a
recent article in Scientific American covering some of the common objections to LEED Certification.
There are 3 references in C3 to LEED as follows; page 20, Objective 7.5, page 21, Objective
7.8 and page 21, Objective 7.14. Please add Energy Star and Green Globes for alternative
certification. Shown below is a link to a recent article in Scientific American covering some of
the common objections to LEED Certification.
As a resident of Western Clay Township, I am writing you today in reference to the C3
Comprehensive Plan that is currently under consideration and specifically about the
underutilized property surrounding the intersection of 116th Street and Springmill Road. The
immediate area has evolved into a first class commercial corridor that contains immense
employment opportunities as well as substantial revenue for the City. It is my hope that we can
further enrich this area by providing additional commercial assets of the same stature and
supplementing those assets with services that the population, both day time and full time, may
enjoy.
As a resident of Western Clay Township, I am writing you today in reference to the C3
Comprehensive Plan that is currently under consideration and specifically about the
underutilized property surrounding the intersection of 116th Street and Springmill Road. The
immediate area has evolved into a first class commercial corridor that contains immense
employment opportunities as well as substantial revenue for the City. It is my hope that we can
further enrich this area by providing additional commercial assets of the same stature and
supplementing those assets with services that the population, both day time and full time, may
enjoy.
I would like to give you my comments regarding the use of space in the comprehensive plan.
My name is John Moorin and I live in Windemere at the corner of 106th and Towne. I recently
sold my company Wabash Medical Company. My business was located in Marion County. This
is the 3rd business I have sold in my 18 years as an Indiana resident. None of these
businesses have ever been located in Hamilton County. I would
very much like to have the opportunity to do so at some point in my career. It would allow me to
be closer to my home and family and Hamilton County is a wonderful place to live.
I would like to give you my comments regarding the use of space in the comprehensive plan.
My name is John Moorin and I live in Windemere at the corner of 106th and Towne. I recently
sold my company Wabash Medical Company. My business was located in Marion County. This
is the 3rd business I have sold in my 18 years as an Indiana resident. None of these
businesses have ever been located in Hamilton County. I would
very much like to have the opportunity to do so at some point in my career. It would allow me to
be closer to my home and family and Hamilton County is a wonderful place to live.
Since all of the potential changes resulting from a future 96th St & Westfield Bvld Area Study
are not shown in the Thoroughfare Plan Map and Land Classification Plan Map, consider
temporarily removing the proposed roundabout and 96th and Haverstick until the transportation
issues in this area are resolve with a future Study. The Planning Staff and Engineering will
benefit from additional time to determine if actual traffic counts on Haverstick are sufficient to
support a proposed roundabout or whether alternatives should be considered.
US 31: Was concerned with the language regarding Illinois Street extension regarding 6-10
story buildings?? How will this "Blend" in with homes that are adjacent to the us 31 corridor?
We are located just west of the proposed Illinois St extention and are concerned along with a
number of our neighbors? The specific area in question is between 111th and 106th west of US
31.
96th St: Chesterton neighborhood would like to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.
Commercial development along 96th Street should only occur one lot deep along 96th and
provide adequate buffer. Lighting and after hours traffic should be minimized when considering
type of business.
Geographic Location: Why is North Central Carmel not listed? Is it because the city wants to
buy up this land and turn it in to something else?
Intensity/Density: Where are the areas that will be 2-4.9 dwellings per acre located? The words
“will be” is of concern to me. Are you planning on destroying current neighborhoods to put in
new ones? If so how will you go about doing that?
Geographic Location: (appropriate near highways and arterial w/ excellent accesibility) I am
assuming that Keystone Parkway is one of those areas as well as Main St. Problem is this area
is developed currently with residential homes. Again where are you planning to put these
buildings that would not require removals of residential areas first??? Could it be that you are
going to destroy current neighborhood in order to do this part of the C3 plan?? Please explain!!
Keystone, Design Guidelines: Protect residential neighborhoods on the east side of Keystone
from conflicting land use encroachment -- Question??? Why not protect the ones on the west
side as well? Same goes for the softening of effects of commercial development for residential
neighborhood for the residential neighborhoods on the east side of Keystone -- Question????
Why not protect the residential neighborhood on the west side of Keystone. Should not
neighborhoods on bordering the west side of Keystone be added to this section??
I do not understand why the Meridian Surburban neighborhood is in the Regional Vitality Node.
That is the neighborhood just south of 111th and and just west of Meridian. I hope the residents
in this area have been made aware of this change.
I'd like to see more explanation about the Community Life and Learning Center b/c the name
does not well define it for purposes of a planning document and b/c Objective 2.6 on pg 23 is in
support of higher education. I think "Clay Township" should be included in the the title. Could
something to the effect of "Clay Township's Community Life and Learning Center, operated by
IUPUI and IvyTech, currently provides higher education opportunites in the former C/C Public
Library building."
North Central Carmel, a higher education facility already exists in the Life and Learning Center.
Owned by Clay Twp and leased to Ivy Tech and IUPUI.
Street Classification Chart does not include bike or ped treatment required.
US 31: reconfirm Spring Mill as a residential corridor w/Illinois as a boundary and the
importance of a compact US 31 corridor with sufficient mass to facilitate reaching other goals
such as future transit.
US 31: define Transition-Sensitive Residential
Parking on Residential Parkways? Spring Mill is classified a residential parkway.
Confusing. Is Illinois to get path or lane?
Add 40 acres Parks & Recreation to West Park to reflect expansion
Add Greek Orthodox Church (106th/Shelborne) and Hebrew Congregation (W of University HS)
as Institutional
I read in the C/C Historical Society newsletter that the historic landmark section of the comp
plan was being deleted or not included. I totally support the landmark section being retained
and expanded actually, to include the landmark farm house on the south side of 116th Street, a
little east of the MononGreenway. Mike Hollibaugh visited it a few years ago with me when
there was development pressure. It should be a inventoried at a minimum.
Obj. 6.4: We also would like to see them beef up the section about retaining existing trees
(especially mature trees) and natural areas which happen to exist in an area slated for
development. It takes no special skills or vision to mow down everything on a parcel of land
and build all anew, including landscaping. However, it does take leadership to insist that, at
least when there is taxpayer money involved, we don’t use tax dollars to pay for placing NEW
trees onto a cleared lot if there are already mature trees on the property that could be saved.
Obj. 7.5: The City should require (not strongly recommend) LEED or equivalent buildings for all
new taxpayer paid construction.
Obj. 3.1: Instead of "branding," suggest the word "promoting".
The document divides the community (providing service nodes, this area for the rich, this area
for the poor)
General Comments: I am also opposed to any increase in amenities, such as gas stations and
shops. We are quite content to drive to what we need, not to have it in our immediate
neighborhood. When we became part of Carmel, we thought Carmel would look out
for the needs of the people...not tell us what our needs are (more retail, etc.)
This is a residential area and we do no want an urbanized area shoved on us. Let us be a part
of the decision as to what becomes of our area. There are plenty of shops on Michigan Road or
on Meridian at which we all can do our business. We don't want it in our neighborhood.
I reside in Laurel Lakes Subdivision at 126th and Towne Road. I am opposed to any increase in
the housing density in this area. We moved here because of the lack of high density housing,
and the housing in WestClay is dense enough. We do not need any more apartments in this
area or more houses crammed onto an acre of land. There is no need to increase the density
any further in this area.
I attended the Sept 30 and Oct 14 meetings which addressed, among other items, the Land
Use Map for the Illinois Street expansion along our neighborhood, Spring Mill Place. I
appreciate all the hard work that your Commission is putting in on this project. However, I write
to ask that you reconsider the vote on October 14 to create a special study (pink) area for the
east side of Spring Mill Road between 111 and 116th Streets (the Pittman parcel). I may not be
able to attend the Oct 28 meeting and hope you will consider this email in lieu of my
attendance. The reasons, some of which I tried to raise during the Oct 14 meeting, are as
follows:
I am in complete consensus with my neighbors who've written previously to express their
opinion that the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the
southern border of Spring Lakes Estates should be left as residential as agreed to in the
September 23rd meeting.
We respectfully ask that the "history chapter" be returned to the Carmel Clay Comprehensive
Building Plan. We believe that it most important to preserving Carmel's architectural heritage.
I believe that city plans must explore the most energy efficient designs possible in our buildings
(LEED, Energy Star, etc) and means of transportation (mass transit of some sort). We need to
provide an alternative to cars. The era of cheap energy is over and those cities that are best
prepared will have a marked advantage. Minimize urban sprawl. More mixed use. We must
support and encourage alternative energy options such as wind and solar to move away from
fossil based fuels and reduce our carbon footprint. We should protect existing trees and plant
as many more trees as possible to sequester carbon, provide cooling and air/water filtration.
Please explore all green and sustainable city planning practices.
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special
study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the
southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted
to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was
discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the
conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to Section 5. I did not attend the Oct.
14th meeting but was upset to hear that this previous area was revisited without warning. I
don't understand how all of you could consider making this a special study area whereas
commercial use could be considered. At the last meeting we were told that our neighborhood
fit the description of yellow on your maps. How could you entertain putting a commercial area
next to a low density subdivision. In addition we have million dollar estate homes across the
street, which should be deemed green on the map. This study does not make sense to me and
sounds like a big waste of tax payers money. I am starting to lose faith in your whole process.
Please accept my request to retain the color mapping of orange from the possible change to
pink. As I understand the proposal, this would allow Dr.Pittman to convert zoning from
residential to commercial. This is clearly not the understanding of the home owners in Spring
Mill Place that the property would be developed commercially. If you would pass my request to
stay with the orange mapping, I would appreciate your help.
US 31: While acknowledging that the land west of Springmill Road is and should remain
residential, as a member of the fiscal body, I believe that Meridian commercial corridor should
have Springmill as its western boundary.
The Meridian Corridor is our high profile business corridor and as such, generates the taxes
that help keep residential property taxes low.
The only remaining large area of land available for signature/headquarter development is that
between Illinois and Springmill. Carmel must protect that for the highest and best commercial
use to guarantee that the necessary commercial tax base as we close out our available land.
My wife Marian and I live in Williams Mill and have lived in Carmel or Clay Twp since 1972. The
Plan Commission indicated at the Sept 23rd meeting that the east side of Spring Mill North of
111th street would remain residential. However, the Oct 14th meeting indicated an intent to
revisit this decision and create a special study area. This issue appears on the agenda for Oct
28.
The possibility of a more neighborhood service nodes is in direct conflict with the values of West
Clay residents (see article in Money mag).
116th St. is planned as a Primary Parkway and will need to carry the east and west bound
traffic. Regardless of what happens with Shelborne Road, the City will have to pay the costs for
upgrading 116th St. Since Shelborne at 116th is only 1-mile from Michigan Rd. and even less
far south of 116th, a 4-lane Shelborne south of 116th may not be the best use of funds.
AN (YELLOW) TOO DENSE FOR WEST CARMEL
Marilyn served on the Plan Commission when the current Transportation Plan was developed.
At that time, no definitive information was available about the State’s plan for 421/Michigan Rd.
Shelborne Road was classified as a Secondary Arterial because of the need for major N/S
thoroughfares. Things have changed. Michigan Road will be easily accessed by the two
planned Primary Parkways of 131st and 116th and the 4-lane 146th St. It is worth reconsidering
how far east from Michigan Road it remains important for the City to spend the money for a 4-
lane N/S road. At the very least, between 96th & 116th, it makes sense to encourage traffic to
move to Michigan Road.
There are existing single family homes outside of subdivisions that will have no option but to
enter/exit a 4-lane road. Brandywine’s exit/entrance sits at a dip in the road for southbound
traffic, which already makes exiting Brandywine hazardous during rush hour
There are homes and subdivisions on Shelborne south of 116th St. that pre-existed the last
Thoroughfare Plan. This means the City does not already have the right-of-way, but would have
to purchase it and the City could avoid bringing the road very close to some homes.
With the expansion of Michigan Road to 4 lanes plus turn lanes south of 116th, Shelborne
Road south of 116th is no longer needed to carry the same weight as in the previous plan.
Home Place does not need buildings that have the retail on the bottom with condo's on top or
other office space. This is a fine design if the City of Carmel wants that for their streets, but
leave Home Place alone. The fiscal plan that Carmel wrote for the annexation said that it would
keep the Home Place history in place and not go making it just like Carmel. The people of
Home Place do not need arches, and all brick buildings and statues and all the other crap you
have in Carmel to make us feel important.
If you are going to leave Home Place in the plan, please have a representative from the Home
Place area on the committee so that the people who live in the area have imput.
Since Carmel has not annexed Home Place and not taking any tax dollars from the area and
the Home Place annexation is in court for the next three years. I would suggest that the City of
Carmel leave Home Place area out of the Comprehensive Plan.
This compehensive plan has changed names a number of times and is an off and on process.
If you are going to institute the plan, then put it in place. Quit wasting taxpayer money year
after year and quit wasting peoples time since they have to sit through the meetings year after
year.
As homeowners and residents of the Williams Mill subdivision, located at 111th & Sprindmill Rd.,
we are opposed to the creation of a special study area for the parcel of land east of Springmill
and north of 111th (commonly referred to as the Pittman Pig Farm).
I live at 10966 Springmill Lane in Carmel just south of the Parcel of land by our subdivision
(111th - 116th St on the east side of Springmill Road). This is the parcel affectionately known as
the Pittman pig farm. I do not want this parcel of land (the Ptiman Pig farm) to be changed from
it's residential status to a special study area. This would have a adverse affect on my property
value and change the quality of life in our neighborhood. I oppose this change.
SePRO Corporation is one of many businesses occupying the Fidelity Plaza office park located
on the Southeast corner of Meridian and 116th Street. As both an occupant and a building
owner in the office park, we have been significantly impacted in a negative manner as a result
of the Illinois Street and 116th Street modifications that have occurred over the last several
years. Similar to other buildings in Fidelity Plaza, the occupancy of our office building has
declined significantly in recent years and interest in available space has waned. While we
recognize that several factors play into this trend, feedback from both existing and potential
tenants consistently includes two issues: 1) difficulty in accessing our park due to the
requirement to enter from Illinois Street on the west side of the property/lack of access through
Fidelity Plaza’s main entrance on 116th Street and 2) lack of amenities in the adjoining areas
including restaurants, dry cleaners, etc. Currently, everyone doing business on the west side of
Meridian Street is required, at a minimum, to drive east to Pennsylvania Street to reach any
significant retail/convenience shopping area.
SePRO Corporation is one of many businesses occupying the Fidelity Plaza office park located
on the Southeast corner of Meridian and 116th Street. As both an occupant and a building
owner in the office park, we have been significantly impacted in a negative manner as a result
of the Illinois Street and 116th Street modifications that have occurred over the last several
years. Similar to other buildings in Fidelity Plaza, the occupancy of our office building has
declined significantly in recent years and interest in available space has waned. While we
recognize that several factors play into this trend, feedback from both existing and potential
tenants consistently includes two issues: 1) difficulty in accessing our park due to the
requirement to enter from Illinois Street on the west side of the property/lack of access through
Fidelity Plaza’s main entrance on 116th Street and 2) lack of amenities in the adjoining areas
including restaurants, dry cleaners, etc. Currently, everyone doing business on the west side of
Meridian Street is required, at a minimum, to drive east to Pennsylvania Street to reach any
significant retail/convenience shopping area.
It appears that the proposed land use plan identifies the area from 111th Street north to 116th
and east from Spring Mill Road to west of Illinois St. for low and medium density residential
use. In my personal opinion, when you take the future development of US 31, along with the
existing commercial office space and Clarian hospital into consideration, this is not the best use
for this land. This land is better suited for low or medium density commercial use. It is unlikely
that prospective home buyers would be attracted to low or medium density residential
properties that are directly adjacent to mid-rise office buildings and/or a hospital, due to the
setting, traffic volume and traffic noise.
The current land use plan identifies the land on the north side of 96th Street, between
Haverstick Road and Westfield Boulevard for low density residential use. In my opinion, this is
not the best use of this land. The properties east of Haverstick are commercial properties.
Some of the homes on the north side of 96th Street, west of Haverstick Road, are already being
used for commercial use. The Washington Township Land Use Plan identifies all of the land on
the south side of 96th Street between Keystone Avenue and Westfield Boulevard and south to
the interstate for office commercial use, community commercial use and heavy commercial use.
The future development of the land on the south side of 96th Street, for commercial use, should
influence how the land on the north side of 96th Street is developed. In my opinion, the land on
the north side of 96th Street should be identified for similar commercial development. Existing
and future residents living in this area would benefit from business development along this
corridor.
I concur with the many e-mails you have received on this topic.
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Comment
Does not explain East-West boundaries
South Central, 6th Paragraph: 96th Street omitted as east/west connectivity. Compare w/pg 90
describing 96th as "major east/west arterial"
96th St Corridor Study has been referenced, but most of the assumptions made in 1999 are
outdated or no longer applicable. Please delete outdated assumptions. Please update the
information to reflect the changing nature of the area, as it no longer reflects a stable residential
neighborhood. Wash Twp Comprehensive Plan (Marion County) indicates Commercial Uses on
S sd of 96th. Commercial uses and multifamily rentals exist in the area. Duke redevelopment
(Parkwood).
96th St: Neighborhood should be planned by following these proposed recommendations from
Parts 2 & 3: pg. 17: Objective 1.5, pg. 24: Objective 1.4, pg. 24: Objective 3.2, pg 36:
Neighborhood Service Nodes to be strategically utilized around Carmel in walking or cycling
proximity to suburban, urban and attached residential classifications.
Description: Serves as…east/west arterial (change to corridor)
Enhance East/West Connectivity: include statement about connecting Penn to Westfield Blvd
(as already mentioned in HomePlace section). If straight alignment over 465 were
implemented, would there be a need to connect Penn through the Monon?
Strategy, Buffer Residential Areas: delete “near Michigan Road” – too site specific
Strategy, Enhance East/West Connectivity: confer with discription and maps on pp. 63-75-90-
91-100-101.
Strategy, Maintain Residential Character: 1999 Corridor Study assumptions have become
obsolete due to land use changes on both the north and south sides as well as traffic impact
change.
The various use of the word “arterial” is confusing and isn’t consistent with the Transportation
Plan (Street Classification) on p. 62. There is a problem with the various definitions in terms of
ROW. (Recommend a more thorough look at the various sections to determine “best fit”
classifications for each.)
At present, there doesn’t seem to be bike routes (or multi-paths) planned for this area. Aramore
plans to connect Chesterton with a path through the ROW. Haverstick needs a bike path on the
east side connecting with Lakewood Gardens sidewalks and then again across 98th St. to Hope
Church where paths or sidewalks should be installed along east and south edges.
TIAL (ORANGE) IN WEST CARMEL
Bike path crossing needs to be added across 98th St. with flashing lights. (Path from Aramore
will connect here as well as future paths along the east side of Westfield.) The crossing at the
round-about is unsafe giving the number of accidents occurring and the number and variable
vehicle traffic. (Walking across is hard enough!)
Need signage to indicate connection route to Monon.
Path along 96th Street (to be constructed) as part of road improvement.
Path on west side of Lincoln between 96th St. and 98th St. (Aramore path). (Could this be done
as part of the sewer project to run down Lincoln?)
The alternative alignment (shown on p.91 upper right corner) is not one of the six transportation
options that were evaluated the 1999 Study (see Append. B/Special Study Area) This new
option would mean demolishing the Westfield Blvd. bridge and skewing the proposed 96th
extension in such a way as to cut off north/south connectivity of Westfield Blvd. in order to make
an east/west connection on 96th Street. (#6 in the Study is consistent with “Connect
Pennsylvania Parkway to Westfield Boulevard” and the above mentioned descriptions and
maps.) The new design would involve the State as well as the Marion County MPO, be
extremely costly, and seriously affect the residential areas on both sides (Sherwood Forrest and
The Retreat). (Recommend deletion of this option.)
two lane “arterial” / three lane arterial w/commercial context: 96th St. from Keystone (4 lanes)
narrows to three lanes (although not marked) to two lanes just before Haverstick. Suggest
keeping this configuration into the proposed round-about then becoming a Secondary Parkway
(cf/entry into round-about at Westfield). The 96th Street extension may not have adequate
ROW for a median but would continue perhaps as a Residential Parkway.
section re:maintaining residential character is obsolete. That whole paragraph from land use to
traffic simply is no longer applicable. Should be deleted or some comment made that although
that study was referred to, many changes have taken place both in land use and traffic.
Recommend addition of “96th St. & Westfield Boulevard District Subarea” as new pages 92-93
with a map reflecting the boundaries shown on attached map and change to map on p.101.
Recommend adopting submitted land use map in keeping with the vision of the proposed
update of the Comprehensive in the following references:
Recommend the attached for a 96th St. & Westfield Blvd. District Subarea. Wording from the
Home Place Subarea was utilized.
Recommend 96th from Haverstick to Westfield is Primary Pkwy instead of Primary Arterial
Westfield Blvd. is shown as an Urban Arterial. This should be changed south of 116th when it
changes from Rangeline Road to Westfield Blvd. Not sure what category it fall under until 99th
St. when it become a Secondary Parkway.
Subarea section was missing -- page was blank. So I don't know what if any changes have
been made.
The Residential Parkway page shows a picture of Hazel Dell, but then the map says that all of
Hazel Dell is a Primary Parkway.
Please remember that when Hazel Dell funding was originally approved the stipulation that the
section of Hazel Dell north of 116th was to be a secondary parkway (the terminology at the
time) and the uninhabited portion south of 116th was to be the primary parkway (essentially a
county highway) was an important feature that residents like myself and others felt was a very
important distinction to the orderly growth of the east side of Carmel. The Hazel Dell area
residents were few in number then and we understood the reasons that our western neighbors
near Gray Road had to rebuild Hazel Dell as a "four lane highway" as Mr. Battreal and others
stated at the time. But the folks near Hazel Dell are also east side residential Carmel residents
and are in much greater numbers now. I still feel that it is important that the northern portion of
Hazel Dell not become a speed-through corridor for our Westfield and Noblesville neighbors to
the north who have not adhered to their old comprehensive plans.
I would like to express my support for the inclusion of a commercial mixed use project along the
Springmill corridor for the Comprehensive Plan Update. As a resident and business owner in
west Carmel I feel there is a lack of viable commercial development and places to go on this
side of town. A mixed use project would be the best use of the corridor and I do not feel that
housing is compatible with the surrounding area.
I would like to express my support for the inclusion of a commercial mixed use project along the
Springmill corridor for the Comprehensive Plan Update. As a resident and business owner in
west Carmel I feel there is a lack of viable commercial development and places to go on this
side of town. A mixed use project would be the best use of the corridor and I do not feel that
housing is compatible with the surrounding area.
I agree with Ron Houck. In addition, I should bring to your attention, that over 20 years ago, Dr.
Pittman attempted to get all this acreage re-zoned commercial at that time. This was not long
after we built and purchased our house. At the time, this re-zoning did not agree with the
comprehensive plan. They attempted to use the fact he received a slight variance for one
parcel, to act as precedent for re-zoning the whole section of land. I personally hired Ice Miller
at that time to fight this, then was joined by other residents. At that time, the planning
commission was frankly overwhelmingly in favor of this change. However, in my opinion, when
they found out they might be in for an extended legal battle, apparently they re-considered, and
decided to shelve it. Shortly thereafter, when Dr. Pittman and Jim Nelson again tried to force the
issue, a concerned group of residents here gathered together and successfully defeated the
proposal.
The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois should be rezoned Employment Node for many
reasons. Clarian North has a helipad. The BZA recently declined to approve St. V Heart
Center’s helipad b/c the “noise emanating from the proposed use may awaken adjacent
residents.” Similar distances between helipad and residential would exist if this land were to be
developed as residential properties. The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois
should be rezoned Employment Node b/c the flight plan for the helicopters that land at Clarian
North. Although the primary flight plan uses the 31 corridor, inclement weather often alters flight
plans, causing the helicopters to cross over the land between Spring Mill and Illinois. Why
would we put residential housing in an area where a medical helicopter would fly over?
The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois should be rezoned Employment Node for many
reasons. Clarian North has a helipad. The BZA recently declined to approve St. V Heart
Center’s helipad b/c the “noise emanating from the proposed use may awaken adjacent
residents.” Similar distances between helipad and residential would exist if this land were to be
developed as residential properties. The vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois
should be rezoned Employment Node b/c the flight plan for the helicopters that land at Clarian
North. Although the primary flight plan uses the 31 corridor, inclement weather often alters flight
plans, causing the helicopters to cross over the land between Spring Mill and Illinois. Why
would we put residential housing in an area where a medical helicopter would fly over?
I am in complete consensus with my neighbors who've written previously to express their
opinion that the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the
southern border of Spring Lakes Estates should be left as residential as agreed to in the
September 23rd meeting.
We are very concerned about the plan to revise zoning for the Pittman property north of
111th. We definitely will attend the October 28th meeting.
As a resident of the Williams Mill subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special study of
the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of
Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the
Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and
the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting,
the process was to move on to subsequent items of business. However, at the October 14th
meeting, this subject was once again revisited by those who want to reverse the decision
already made. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and expect
resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the agenda and
all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend
thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
I'm also a resident of Spring Mill Place and fully agree with those I'm referencing below. In
addition please include my position to those who have written before me.
As you are aware our company Resource Commercial Real Estate is the agent for the sale of
the Conseco 48.62 acres on the southwest corner of 116th and Spring Mill Road. Over
the past year and a half much of the interest we have received on the site from potential buyers
is for higher density residential and assisted living and some from retail support.
As you are aware our company Resource Commercial Real Estate is the agent for the sale of
the Conseco 48.62 acres on the southwest corner of 116th and Spring Mill Road. Over
the past year and a half much of the interest we have received on the site from potential buyers
is for higher density residential and assisted living and some from retail support.
I am writing to you regarding the property from Meridian St. to Springmill Rd., from 111th St.
to 116th St. After reviewing the land use map of the Carmel Comprehensive Plan, we strongly
urge you to make the property all commercial. It seems unrealistic, inappropriate and absurd
that any of that property would be anything but COMMERCIAL.
As a registerd nurse in Indiana, I can't imagine not using that property for a first class
development that the patients and hospital staff can walk to without crossing Meridian St. With
that area being easily accessible to Meridian St. in a high traffic area and conducive to
attracting business, it certainly seems that having businesses on that property would be
beneficial to everyone in the city. It would represent good fiscal planning for the city of Carmel
and help grow the tax base.
I am writing to you regarding the property from Meridian St. to Springmill Rd., from 111th St.
to 116th St. After reviewing the land use map of the Carmel Comprehensive Plan, we strongly
urge you to make the property all commercial. It seems unrealistic, inappropriate and absurd
that any of that property would be anything but COMMERCIAL.
As a registerd nurse in Indiana, I can't imagine not using that property for a first class
development that the patients and hospital staff can walk to without crossing Meridian St. With
that area being easily accessible to Meridian St. in a high traffic area and conducive to
attracting business, it certainly seems that having businesses on that property would be
beneficial to everyone in the city. It would represent good fiscal planning for the city of Carmel
and help grow the tax base.
If the north meridian heights rezone goes through, we should update this land classification map
to change the meridian heights neighborhood (located east of US 31 and 131st st.) from the
peach color (suburban residential) to the blue color (employment node).
US 31: My home is located in the Spring Mill Place subdivision (Map #1 and Map #2), which is
located between 107th and 111th Streets on the east side of Spring Mill Road in the map area
designated as “Transition-Sensitive Residential”. My address is 315 W 107th Street (red star on
map #2), which uncharacteristically for a numbered street, exists only as this cul-de-sac.
Properties along the east side of our subdivision are all large lots on cul-de-sacs and the homes
have large set backs with some near the rear of the lots.Our subdivision was originally platted in
1980, prior to the enactment of the US 31 Overlay Zone. At the time of enactment, the US 31
Overlay Zone was 600 feet on either side of US 31. Even after the US 31 Overlay Zone was put
in place the conceptual design for Illinois Street was a meandering road confined interior to the
overlay zone with double loading within the overlay zone. A few years ago the US 31
dimensions were expanded west several hundred feet. In Map #1 above, compare the
dimensions of the US 31 Overlay zone between US 31 and Pennsylvania to the size of the
overlay on the west side of US 31. In many places it is two to three times as wide.
US 31: Requirement for 6-10 Story Buildngs seems to be in conflict with the statement in
Design Guidelines that addresses transition of mass and scale between US 31 & Illinois to
minimize impact to residential development. So, if the area from Illinois Street to Pennsylvania
Street is required to have 6 to 10 story buildings, how will or how can the scale and mass of
structures between US 31 and Illinois Street be transitioned when it abuts the “Transition-
Sensitive Residential” areas on the US 31 Corridor map on page 89? The area colored as
“Transition-Sensitive Residential” (blue-green are on Map #1) occupies the entire western side
of Illinois street from 103rd Street to 131st Street. It is not practically possible to transition scale
and mass, as specified in the Design Guidelines, within the confines of the corridor after
allowing for parking for a 6-10 story of building.
US 31: what is transition-sensitive residential? How does this work when encouraging 6-10
story buildings in the corridor?
What is the driving force behind the need to establish a 6-10 story building height requirement
between Illinois Street and Pennsylvania Street? What is wrong with letting the market
determine the size of building as dictated by land prices and demand? This new height
requirement would have effectively precluded many of the existing high-quality buildings already
located in the US 31 corridor. The requirement of 6-10 story buildings in this area produces
numerous impacts that are damaging to the existing adjacent residential areas on both sides of
US 31. With the narrowness of the corridor on the Pennsylvania Street side south of 116th
Street and the proximity of existing residential properties, it will be impractical to buffer from this
size of building from the residential areas without adversely affecting their property values.
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special
study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the
southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted
to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was
discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the
conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections. However, at
the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to take a
second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend and
expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the
agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did
not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
Design Guidelines, 3rd bullet: Transition the scale and mass of structures between US 31 and
Spring Mill to minimize impact to residential development to the west.
Design Guidelines, 4th bullet: Require high quality, urban office architecture and campus
design between Spring Mill Rd and Pennsylvania St. Office buildings should be required to be
between 4-10 stories between Pennsylvania and Illinois and 2-4 stories between Illinois St and
Spring Mill Rd. We should encourage the creation of a “sense of place” for people on the west
side of Meridian to live, work, shop and play.
Design Guidelines, 9th bullet: Respect transition and buffering adjacent to existing subdivisions.
Take out AGREEMENTS. There are not any buffering agreements.
Extend Illinois Street From 116th St to 106th Street. This extension is critical to relieve the traffic
from Spring Mill prior to US 31 becoming limited access. This needs to happen prior to 2011.
Also, change Illinois Street to Spring Mill Rd. as the transition from intense office corridor to low
density residential areas to the west.
Should we acknowledge the change in this corridor is not only limited access elevated
interchanges but also helicopter traffic, and the addition of truck traffic from Keystone? This
diversion of truck traffic from Keystone was done because Keystone was determined to be a
residential corridor and US 31 a heavy commercial corridor.
While it is important that we discuss this area at length in this meeting, I recommend that the
heavy lifting for this corridor be done by the US 31 Committee and make a recommendation
back to the Plan Commission.
I think it is good that the boundaries for the Meridian Corridor extend west of spring mill
Pls change the area denoted as Transition Sensitive Residential from 111th St on the south to
Spring Lake Estates on the north to Employment Corridor – nobody believes it is good planning
to go from 6-10 story buildings to residential.
ILLINOIS CORRIDOR - LAND USE
Why are we treating the east side of US 31 different than the west side of US 31? Shouldn’t the
boundary extend east of Pennsylvania?
96th St: Corridor is rapidly changing. This should be considered as plans are made for the
future.
116th & Spring Mill: Potential to create something for west-siders to avoid crossing 31. Difficult
for service/office workers to get anywhere on their lunch hours. Intense office next to large lot
single family does not make sense from a planning perspective.
I am also very concerned that the Comprehensive Plan continues to encourage sprawl.
Neighborhoods like The Reserve at Spring Mill, Williams Mill, Spring Arbor and Ashbury Park
could not be duplicated in many places on the west side of Carmel. We need to find places
where more dense, vibrant and creative communities can be created on the west side. We
need to be aware of the impact of the new 146th St on the west side of Carmel and plan
appropriately. Please consider changing the entire corridor from 141st to 146th St to Suburban
Residential from the Boone County Line to Town Rd. In addition, this is the ideal area for a
large outdoor sports park that our community needs and wants. This is ideal for this use
because it could be accessed off of a busy 146th St and be less invasive to residential.
It is my belief that the property in the general vicinity of 116th and US 31 West to Spring Mill Rd,
South to 111th St and North to Spring Lake Estates subdivision should be planned to allow for
intense commercial development. I also believe that more intense uses should occur on the
west side of Spring Mill Rd. We shouldn’t be provincial in our thinking and try to
compartmentalize development and planning. As a community we are blessed to still have so
much ground in this area to create a sense of place for businesses and residents on the west
side. It is inconceivable to develop and build residential between Illinois St and Spring Mill Rd.
Illinois Street is a major road w 120 of row. In addition, its adjacency to the future limited access
highway US 31, the truck and commercial traffic on US 31 and the relocated truck traffic from
Keystone, the helicopters flying overhead to and from Clarian Hospital make residential
impractical and destined to fail or never happen.
The area between Westfield Blvd and Haverstick north of and adjacent to 96th St should also
be looked at closely as an area in transition. South of 96th St and north of and adjacent to I465
will be commercial and is currently under contract by a commercial developer. This
development will have an impact on the area north of 96th St. I am not suggesting how this
area change only that it will change and I recommend that we look to our planning staff and
paid consultant for guidance.
Recognize 146th Street as a changing and prominent corridor
US 31: I live at 365 W. 107th Street, Carmel (which is near 106th and Springmill). Unlike many
of my neighbors, I favor (a) being annexed by Carmel and (b) having Illinois Street as a
Parkway. (Likewise, I would favor Springmill as a Parkway, but I don't think that is being
contemplated at this time.) However, I oppose the idea 6 story office buildings on the west side
US 31 between 106th and 111th Streets. I believe buildings of that height would significantly
deflate the value of our homes for, at least, two reasons: (a) the tenants in the upper floors
would look directly into the backyards of the adjacent home owners, and (b) there is no way to
effectively screen from view of the residences a 6 story building.
My name is Suzanne Glesing, and I am a resident in the Spring Mill Place subdivision. As a
resident, I am opposed to the creation of a special study area to study the area on the east side
of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates.
Keystone: The third bullet under the Design Goals should also state protection of the
established neighborhoods on the west side of Keystone. "Roughly" 98th to just south of 116th
126th to smokey row.
Note the purpose of the plan is to improve the health, safety, convenience and welfare of
citizens. For the city to attempt to mandate preferred architectural details could infringe on
individual rights.
Obj. 5.7: This could include moving toward more naturalistic lawn care. Golf courses and private
lawns could allow grass to go dormant instead of using valuable water resources.
Obj. 3.3: The idea has merit but is it wise to make specific recommendations about privately
owned property?
Obj. 5.3: The residents of the Little Eagle Creek area should be made aware that a greenway is
an objective of development.
Where does "agricultural" fit in the Land Classification Plan? The current S-1 zoning ordinance
allows for a tree nursery on ten acres of land and I believe owning a horse requires five acres.
Acknowledging that the actual ordinance governs the use - should there be any mention in this
"broadbrush" document?
My family and I have been a resident of west Carmel for 17 years, 13 of which I resided at
130th and Spring Mill Road. I’m very familiar with the traffic patterns and needs of the area. My
family and I moved to west Carmel when there were only a few subdivisions west of Meridian
Street. We have seen positive growth in the area that was well planned, but there is one thing
that has been lacking for the residents and that is good commercial and retail support and
amenities west of US 31. As Meridian Street has evolved from lightly traveled highway to a
soon to be limited access freeway, it has become much more difficult and dangerous to travel
across it.
My family and I have been a resident of west Carmel for 17 years, 13 of which I resided at
130th and Spring Mill Road. I’m very familiar with the traffic patterns and needs of the area. My
family and I moved to west Carmel when there were only a few subdivisions west of Meridian
Street. We have seen positive growth in the area that was well planned, but there is one thing
that has been lacking for the residents and that is good commercial and retail support and
amenities west of US 31. As Meridian Street has evolved from lightly traveled highway to a
soon to be limited access freeway, it has become much more difficult and dangerous to travel
across it.
As a resident of the Spring Mill Place subdivision, I am opposed to the creation of a special
study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road north of 111th Street to the
southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. The correct process is to leave the area designated
as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd meeting!
The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area
now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was made to
leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on
to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed
again by those wishing to take a second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to your process
and to those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues
when they are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance.
Also at the Sept 30 meeting, Mr. Pittman attended and advocated that his entire parcel be
changed to employment node (blue) color, making arguments about helicopters and residential
development that were not accepted. A discussion was held and vote taken, which resulted in
no color change to his parcel (which is presently residential/orange east of Spring Mill Road and
blue east of Illinois Street).
At a later point in the Oct 14 meeting, discussion was had about the Clarian segment (north
of 116th Street). It was suggested that a special study (pink) area be created. A discussion
(with many people talking over each other) was held -- in the midst of which Mr. Pittman added
his property -- and the vote taken to create a special study (pink) area -- apparently for both
Clarian and Pittman parcels.
I have heard that people don't want commercial uses in that area. We already have that with
Clarian and we should leverage that to our advantage. It would be a great technology and Life
science corridor. Businesses would seek this place as a home in which they wanted to stay.
The office park around it is struggling. If this were developed with creativity and energy then
that park would reap the benefit as well.
I have heard that people don't want commercial uses in that area. We already have that with
Clarian and we should leverage that to our advantage. It would be a great technology and Life
science corridor. Businesses would seek this place as a home in which they wanted to stay.
The office park around it is struggling. If this were developed with creativity and energy then
that park would reap the benefit as well.
• (p.17) Essence Objective 1.5 “Strongly promote mixed use in areas suitable for commercial
development, and protect residential areas from unsuitable commercial development.
• (p.24) Essence Objective 1.4 “Allow greater development intensity on the north, west, and
south edges of the district to serve as a transition from more intensely developed areas.”
• (p.36) Neighborhood Service Node (Geographic Location) “Strategically utilized around
Carmel in walking or cycling proximity to suburban, urban and attached residential
classifications.”
• Essence Objective 3.2 “Endeavor to plan neighborhoods, gateways, boundaries, and service
areas through more detailed subarea plans.
1. Our neighborhood appeared at the Sept 23, 30 and Oct 14 meetings for areas that affect
the perimeter of our neighborhood. As stated previously, our neighborhood has approximately
48 homes on 1+ acres each.
2. On Sept 23, we were told to return on Sept 30 because the agenda was too full to reach
our area of interest. At the Sept 30 meeting, a vote was taken after discussion that our
neighborhood (east side of Spring Mill Road between 106 and 111th Streets) should be
changed to "yellow" on the land use and planning map because it qualifies for low density
classification and not likely to change any time in the foreseeable future. We thank you for this
discussion and vote.
3. There is right-of-way extending some distance past the paths. Please explain the use of
this right-of-way. Can this be reasonably reduced?
3. At the Oct 14 meeting, many reps of our neighborhood as well as Mr. Pittman appeared
once more. It was confirmed on the record that even though the map colors had not changed,
our neighborhood segment was indeed now to be yellow. Mr. Pittman then took the opportunity
to ask that blue be extended to his entire parcel -- and many of his written comments repeated
a suggestion that the commercial zone be extended to the west side of Illinois all the way to
Spring Mill Road; after discussion, this was declined (I recall one basis was that a vote
previously taken and would not be revisited) and the orange color was to remain between
Spring Mill Road and Illinois Street.
4. Areas where homes and neighborhoods were established before the existing Thoroughfare
Plan was developed usually lack the needed right-of-way. Those residents would sometimes
have to give up significant pieces of their yard. We ask that the proposed Plan be sensitive to
this and make every reasonable accommodation to treat the road in context with its
surroundings. For example: Keystone, Hazel Dell, 116th St., and Towne Road are all classified
as Primary Parkway. Obviously Keystone is of a different magnitude than Hazel Dell, and
Carmel West is different in character from Carmel East.
4. The Clarian and Pittman parcels are very different as to what borders them and why Clarian
may qualify for amendments as to future use that Pittman should not. As I was briefly able to
raise at the Oct 14 meeting, the first vote and second discussion on the Pittman parcel should
hold firm, i.e., it stay orange. Further, that changing it now to a special study area will require
our low density neighborhood to attend countless more meetings so in the future we cannot be
foreclosed from protesting any amended use or zoning sought for the Pittman parcel.
5. Government works because we have good leaders who make decisions after hearing the
voices of its citizens. The Commission heard discussion on the Pittman parcel on September
30 and voted to keep it orange. Our neighborhood attendance paid off. This decision was even
used as the basis to keep the parcel as orange when Mr. Pittman asked a second time for a
change early into the October 14 meeting. By then, Mr. Pittman had authored more comments
on the subject (many long ones) and obtained comments from new supporters who didn't
appear at the meeting yet generically favored westside development -- although not specifying it
required Pittman's particular parcel to do so. If Mr. Pittman (or others) are allowed to show up
eternally and refine their arguments and support for a vote they repeatedly seek (and to the
eventual attrition of foes who relied on the prior vote when they timely gave their arguments and
showed support), the process breaks down and is entirely unreliable for all of its citizens.
6. Therefore, I ask that you reinstate the Sept 30 vote on the Pittman parcel upon which many
of my neighbors relied and do not allow the Pittman parcel to become part of the special study
area that is appropriate for its differently situated neighbor, Clarian.
After taking time to review the proposed Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan, we have
noted that the property just west of Fidelity Plaza, which would include the property just north of
111th Street, west of Illinois Street, south of 116th Street and East of Spring Mill Road, is to be
zoned residential. From our perspective, it would be best if this property was zoned as either a
Community Vitality Node or a Regional Vitality Node. While some high-density housing might
be successful in this area, we do not believe zoning the entire area residential will be the best
use of this land as it relates to the surrounding communities, including the businesses in the
area. As a building owner in the area, we would like to see the area just West of Meridian
Street between 111th Street and 116th Street become a strong business community; however,
this area is being placed at a disadvantage to areas east of Meridian Street based on the
currently planned zoning requirements.
After taking time to review the proposed Carmel Consolidated Comprehensive Plan, we have
noted that the property just west of Fidelity Plaza, which would include the property just north of
111th Street, west of Illinois Street, south of 116th Street and East of Spring Mill Road, is to be
zoned residential. From our perspective, it would be best if this property was zoned as either a
Community Vitality Node or a Regional Vitality Node. While some high-density housing might
be successful in this area, we do not believe zoning the entire area residential will be the best
use of this land as it relates to the surrounding communities, including the businesses in the
area. As a building owner in the area, we would like to see the area just West of Meridian
Street between 111th Street and 116th Street become a strong business community; however,
this area is being placed at a disadvantage to areas east of Meridian Street based on the
currently planned zoning requirements.
Another office park does not fit the character of the area nor the vision of its resident's who
believe that the best use for the land is for residential or continued agricultural purposes.
As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th meeting, a project for the
land between 111th and 116th Streets is ONCE AGAIN going to be presented to the Plan
Commission and it's merits considered at that time. WHY?! This has already been addressed,
and finalized in September. Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and
needlessly involves the residents of my subdivision in yet MORE MEETINGS, a strategy merely
designed to wear down my neighbors and myself. We all have busy lives involving our children,
our families, our jobs and whatever else. Taking the time to attend YET ANOTHER meeting -
feel as if our presence is worthwhile - only to find out that it will once again be a WASTE OF
TIME leaves all of us more than disappointed in the system that we are expected to count on.
At the time the US 31 Overlay Zone was expanded, Illinois Street was pushed to the western
boundary of the overlay, placing it directly adjacent to our residential properties. Until this
expansion of the US 31 Overlay Zone, our neighborhood had always enjoyed a comfortable
boundary abutting residentially zoned property.This re-configuration of the US 31 Overlay zone
has caused the encroachment of office buildings into what was a residentially zoned area. This
current revision to the Comprehensive Plan only further negatively impacts our area. Some
protection is certainly in order. It is impractical to consider 6 to 10 story office building abutting
residential areas. Even with the separation by Illinois Street the towering visual impact will
negatively affect property values and our quality of life. The scale and mass of 6-10 story
buildings is simply too large to not have a considerable negative impact to our neighborhood.
Next to the transition-sensitive residential areas with existing homes the building height in the
corridor should be capped at four stories.
c. The highest density in the entire quadrant is Weston at 2.14, barely over the Suburban
Residential category. But that is misleading: Weston has several sections, each with very
different densities. As part of its approval under the 1st Cluster Ordinance, it was required to
“transition” its density, lowering the u/a as it went eastward. Weston Village, the section farthest
west, abuts the commercial area. It is the densest section, above 2.14. Weston Park, the
section between Weston Village and Brandywine, is less dense with houses abutting
Brandywine on 1/3 acre lots. North of Brandywine is Weston Ridge, with ½ acre lots. It is
appropriate to include the section of Weston closest to the commercial area in Suburban
Residential, but not appropriate to include the rest of this quadrant. This quadrant should be
divided into different zoning classifications that more appropriately fit what currently exists.
(Marilyn: “I have a personal stake in this. I live in Brandywine on a 1 acre lot. I would never
have bought and built in an area zoned for even a 2.0 u/a.”)
Clarian parcel (north of 116 to Spring Lakes subdivision): PINK
Commercial development on vacant properties along Illinois St should be encouraged. As the
city can see complete buildout w/in 10 years, NAV will flatten. We should take every opportunity
to encourage commercial development in this area to keep property taxes low for residents.
Commercial development on vacant properties along Illinois St should be encouraged. As the
city can see complete buildout w/in 10 years, NAV will flatten. We should take every opportunity
to encourage commercial development in this area to keep property taxes low for residents.
Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the
residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings. This is clearly a strategy merely designed to
wear down the residents of our neighborhood. The Carmel Plan Commission should do the right
thing for the members of this residential community!
Creating a special study area merely prolongs the process and needlessly involves the
residents in our subdivision in yet more meetings.This is clearly a strategy merely designed to
wear down the residents of our neighborhood. The Carmel Plan Commission should do the right
thing for the members of this residential community!
d. Between 96th and 106th west of Shelborne are single family estate lots abutting 106th St.
and two subdivisions with densities of 1.76 and 2.13. An argument could perhaps be made that
this section is more appropriately zoned Low Intensity Suburban Residential, with a density of
1.0 to 1.9. That is more compatible with the Estate Residential category to its east.
Developing this land for commercial use will: 1. Adversely affect the value of our homes in
Spring Mill Place as well as the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill Road
2. Increase traffic through our subdivision as well as those surrounding thoroughfares in our
area
3. Increase the safety risks to the many children that call Spring Mill Place home with added foot
and automotive traffic
4. Potentially increase crime in our area.
Our position and consensus on this topic is unwavering.
Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely affect the value of our homes
in Spring Mill Place, but it would also increase the traffic through our subdivision as well as
throughout the surrounding thoroughfares in the area. Additionally, bringing another commercial
development so close to our neighborhood increases the safety risks to our children because of
the amount of both automotive and foot traffic that a commercial development would bring.
Developing this land for commercial use would not only adversely affect the value of our homes
in Spring Mill Place, but it would also increase the traffic through our subdivision as well as
throughout the surrounding thoroughfares in the area. Additionally, bringing another commercial
development so close to our neighborhood increases the safety risks to our children because of
the amount of both automotive and foot traffic that a commercial development would bring.
Dr. Pittman decided to (for a time) turn that property into a pig farm, as an attempted slap in the
face to the residents. At the time, Browning called me at my office several times, trying to get
me to convince folks to settle, because the smell was directed towards his development.
However, as one of my neighbors who grew up on a farm said... "the smell doesn't bother me,
to me it smells like money!" Eventually that pig farm went away. I am sure he will threaten
something like that again.
Further, the land north along Spring Mill Road owned by Clarian was zoned residential. This
was a compromise intended to satisfy the surrounding residential property owners. This too
has been reclassified.
Having been made aware of the results of the September meeting, I felt no need to attend the
October meeting because a decision had already been made. Apparently I was wrong. Even
though these issues were finalized at the previous meeting - they were revisited without the
same people who had previously taken the time to be present. This is absolutely unfair and
seemingly unethical. The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as
agreed to at the September 23rd meeting.
However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was plowed again by those wishing to
take a second bite at the apple. This is a disservice to your process and to those who attend
and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they are not on the
agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those people who did
not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
However, at the October 14th meeting this same issue was raised again by those wishing to
take a second bite at the apple. It seems to me this issue was settled at the previous meeting.
The fact that it was allowed to be reconsidered w/out advance notice to interested parties is a
great disservice to interested residents like myself who have been told this issue has been
resolved at a previous meeting.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=leed-compliance-not-required&print=true
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=leed-compliance-not-required&print=true
I am also terrible concerned that the Comp Plan is suggesting a requirement of 6-10 story
buildings in this area. Already the traffic in our area is so clogged that I often have a tough time
getting to and from our Williams Mills home from 116th and Meridian and that doesn't even
include the impossiblity of actually waiting for the many traffic lights it can take to actually cross
Meridian at 116th Street. I plan to be at the meeting on next Tuesday.
I am aware that the Pittman Parcel is being considered as a potential special study area under
the Comprehensive Plan for Carmel. I am in agreement with Ron Houck (that lives in our
subdivision) per his prior statement to you. I believe the best use of the Pittman Parcel in light of
the existing residential communities surrounding that parcel is for the Pittman Parcel to be
residential.
I am in complete consensus with the entire neighborhood that does not want the land to the
north of 111th Street to become a commercial property and does not want this property to be a
special study area. Development of this land commercially would negatively impact our
neighborhood(traffic,theft,values,etc.).Please leave the area as residential as agreed.We do not
feel that 6-10 story buildings to the east of our neighborhood would be in our best interest.
I am therefore opposed to changing the property to a Special Study Area. Thank you for giving
consideration to my thoughts as well as to all of the other home owners in the Spring Mill Place
subdivision.
I have recently learned, from other similarly concerned residents, that the commission is
considering creating a special study area to study the area on the east side of Spring Mill Road
north of 111th Street to the southern border of Spring Lakes Estates. I am very much opposed
to this! This area has many families living across the street on 111th and Springmill streets. It is
not appropriate for this land to be turned to commercial use and the large increase in traffic and
light pollution.
I implore you to realize and honor what we as a community have work so hard to create and
preserve over the years. Please re-establish the property being referenced back to residential.
I realize that no specific project/development proposal is being reviewed right now by
the Carmel Planning Commission for development of the property. But given the nice Williams
Mill subdivision (on the west side of Spring Mill Road across from the Pitman Parcel), I believe
that another well planned development like Williams Mill would fit well into the residential design
and flavor of our existing two subdivisions (Williams Mill and Spring Mill Place.)
I realize that there was recently a meeting which took place on September 23rd that was solely
devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was
discussed at length and the decision was made to leave it designated as residential. At the
conclusion of that meeting the process was to move on to subsequent sections.
I WILL be at the next meeting - as will many other members of my neighborhood. Hopefully the
effort will result in an improvement of communication and resolve.
It is also my understanding that on October 14th another meeting was held and the previous
conclusion from the September meeting was reversed. This is a disservice to your process and
especially a disservice to those who took the time to attend the FIRST meeting. Why take the
time, if simply another meeting will be held less that one month later and have all of previous
discussions revisited and CHANGED? Especially when it was not even on the agenda and all of
the same people are not in attendance.
It is my hope that you do your best to help prevent this area from becoming yet another office
park.
My understanding is that the meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the
Land Use map. The area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and
a decision was made to leave it designated as residential - as it should be.
Nothing has changed. As a matter of fact, there is MORE residential in this area that would be
affected at this time. I am sure this issue would be fought even harder this go around. There are
parties that are still attempting to surround our neighborhood with commercial development.
This was not what we expected when we purchased our houses, nor improved them over the
years. I am sure this would be an extended and messy battle that would make the annexation
look like a picnic.
Now that Keystone Avenue has been designated as the residential corridor and Meridian Street
is planned to be a limited access highway and commercial and with the new residential
development over the past several years on the west side of Meridian Street, there is increased
demand for business services and amenities on the west side of Meridian Street at 116th for
convenience of people living and working in the area. Many of the buyers / developers
that have shown interest in the Conseco ground either for assisted living and higher density
residential are attracted to the site because of it’s proximity to The Clarian North Medical
Center, The Indiana Heart Hospital and St. Vincent’s North Hospital that would also increase the
demand for services on the west side of Meridian Street.
Now that Keystone Avenue has been designated as the residential corridor and Meridian Street
is planned to be a limited access highway and commercial and with the new residential
development over the past several years on the west side of Meridian Street, there is increased
demand for business services and amenities on the west side of Meridian Street at 116th for
convenience of people living and working in the area. Many of the buyers / developers
that have shown interest in the Conseco ground either for assisted living and higher density
residential are attracted to the site because of it’s proximity to The Clarian North Medical
Center, The Indiana Heart Hospital and St. Vincent’s North Hospital that would also increase the
demand for services on the west side of Meridian Street.
On a second note, I would like to express my desire to retain the orange color designation
(residential) for the parcel of land just north of our subdivision located between 111th and 116th
street just east of springmill road. On Sept 23, 2008, it was agreed upon to leave this area as
residential and move on to other areas of concern. To our surprise, on Oct 14th meeting, this
same area was discussed again, while not on the agenda for that evening, and some plan
commission members asked that this area be changed to pink. This action defeats the purpose
of deciding to do one thing and then changing to another. This process is unfair and a complete
waste of time for community members to show up if previous decisions are cast away and new
agendas delivered.
Our land backs up to the land that will be developed for Illinois Street, so we are also VERY
concerned with the potential height o f the buildings that will line Illinois Street. The reason we
bought this home was because it is on a 2 acre wooded lot and we love the wildlife that inhabits
the area behind our house. We (our children) will be losing the opportunity to see deer, ducks,
rabbits, squirrels, etc... out of our back windows when this project is complete. Please don't ask
us to look out our windows at 6-10 story buildings instead!!
Pittman parcel (between 111 & 116 Streets): ORANGE
Please allow the prior decision to stand and leave this area zoned residential.
Please DO NOT reclassify either of these two properties. No commercial west of Illinois MUST
remain in effect. Thanks much. :-)
Please forward these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the Carmel Plan Commission,
so that he and the rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our neighborhood and
the greater Spring Mill area.
Residential zoning of the vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois is not the public’s best
interest. Suburban residential properties, located near a helipad and next to a busy regional
medical center, would not be able to return high value. Best use would be commercial, w/
access onto Spring Mill prohibited. Entry/exit onto property should only be allowed off of Illinois.
US 31 will become a limited access highway w/ 116th St being a major intersection. Not only will
there be significant traffic in this area there will be significant noise w/ all the normal truck traffic
on US 31 but the added truck traffic has been relocated from Keystone. In addition, Illinois St. is
becoming a major road to move local traffic. This will increase significantly when US 31
becomes limited access. It is important to finish the last leg of Illinois St. down to 106th St prior
to construction commencement on US 31 in 2011. It is inconceivable that you would have
residential use in such a corridor. It is poor planning and an irresponsible use of such prime land
to maximize our tax base.
Residential zoning of the vacant land between Spring Mill and Illinois is not the public’s best
interest. Suburban residential properties, located near a helipad and next to a busy regional
medical center, would not be able to return high value. Best use would be commercial, w/
access onto Spring Mill prohibited. Entry/exit onto property should only be allowed off of Illinois.
US 31 will become a limited access highway w/ 116th St being a major intersection. Not only will
there be significant traffic in this area there will be significant noise w/ all the normal truck traffic
on US 31 but the added truck traffic has been relocated from Keystone. In addition, Illinois St. is
becoming a major road to move local traffic. This will increase significantly when US 31
becomes limited access. It is important to finish the last leg of Illinois St. down to 106th St prior
to construction commencement on US 31 in 2011. It is inconceivable that you would have
residential use in such a corridor. It is poor planning and an irresponsible use of such prime land
to maximize our tax base.
Spring Mill Place (between 106 & 111 Streets): YELLOW
Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one
of the primary reasons we bought our home. A commercial development at 111th and Spring
Mill changes the entire make up of the area. We do not appreciate the potential for more
commercial so close to our homes any more than the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill
would.Please forward these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the Carmel Plan
Commission, so that he and the rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our
neighborhood and the greater Spring Mill area.
Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one
of the primary reasons we bought our home, having 2 small children. A commercial
development at 111th and Spring Mill changes the entire make up of the area. We do not
appreciate the potential for more commercial so close to our homes any more than the $1MM+
homes that line Spring Mill would.
Spring Mill Place is a quiet, friendly neighborhood with very little cut through traffic, which is one
of the primary reasons we bought our home. A commercial development at 111th and Spring
Mill changes the entire make up of the area. We do not appreciate the potential for
more commercial so close to our homes any more than the $1MM+ homes that line Spring Mill
would. Please forward these comments to Leo Dierckman, President of the Carmel Plan
Commission, so that he and the rest of the commission will do the right thing for both our
neighborhood and the greater Spring Mill area.
SUMMARY:
Thank you for your work on this important project and your consideration to include our property
in the "Special Study".
Thank you.
The area should be still designated as residential (orange), as agreed to at the September 23rd
meeting.
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the
September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th
meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan
Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely
prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more
meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents.
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the
September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th
meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan
Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely
prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more
meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents.
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the
September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th
meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan
Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely
prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more
meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents.
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the
September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th
meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan
Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely
prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more
meetings; a strategy merely designed to wear down residents.
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the
September 23rd meeting. I understand that some Plan Commission members indicated at the
October 14th meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be
presented to the Plan Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Why then would you
make this a special study area now. It seems that this action merely prolongs the process and
involves our subdivision in more meetings. Are you merely trying to wear us down? What's
going on here??
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the
September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th
meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan
Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely
prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in yet more
meetings, a strategy merely designed to wear down residents.
The correct process is to leave the area designated as residential, as agreed to at the
September 23rd meeting. As some Plan Commission members indicated at the October 14th
meeting, a project for the land between 111th and 116th Streets should be presented to the Plan
Commission and it's merits considered at that time. Creating a special study area merely
prolongs the process and needlessly involves the residents in our subdivision in more meetings,
a strategy seemingly designed to wear down the residents. We plan on attending the October
28th meeting to monitor the progress being made on behalf of our community.
The fact that those supporting commercial development decided to bring this matter up at a
subsequent meeting following a decision to classify residential further clouds our belief in a fair
and appropriate process. This approach was unfair to us that believed this issue was decided
at a previous meeting.
The intersection at 116th and Spring Mill provides Carmel the opportunity to allow something
uniquely special to be developed there due to the large amount of land that exists in an area
that is mostly developed. With the advent of quality mixed use developments we have seen
here and though out progressive communities around the country, and the benefits they provide
their surrounding communities, it would only make sense that the area around 116th and Spring
Mill be planned to provide the same benefits. Mixed use projects that include higher density
residential and support retail and office are the perfect buffer between the single family
residences to the west and the offices, hospital and highway to the east. In the age of where
people are wanting and needing to drive less, allowing mixed use developments to take place at
116th and Spring Mill makes more sense today then ever.
The intersection at 116th and Spring Mill provides Carmel the opportunity to allow something
uniquely special to be developed there due to the large amount of land that exists in an area
that is mostly developed. With the advent of quality mixed use developments we have seen
here and though out progressive communities around the country, and the benefits they provide
their surrounding communities, it would only make sense that the area around 116th and Spring
Mill be planned to provide the same benefits. Mixed use projects that include higher density
residential and support retail and office are the perfect buffer between the single family
residences to the west and the offices, hospital and highway to the east. In the age of where
people are wanting and needing to drive less, allowing mixed use developments to take place at
116th and Spring Mill makes more sense today then ever.
The meeting on September 23rd was solely devoted to discussing the Land Use map. The
area now being considered for special study was discussed at length and the decision was
made to leave it designated as residential. At the conclusion of that meeting the process was to
move on to subsequent sections. However, at the October 14th meeting this same ground was
addressed again by those wishing to try it again. This is a disservice to your process and to
those who attend and expect resolution at each meeting, rather than revisiting issues when they
are not on the agenda and all people are not in attendance. This is certainly unfair to those who
did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at the previous meeting.
The process of revisiting agenda items that were previously agreed to creates confusion and is
unfair to those who attend meetings and leave believing that issues have been finalized. The
process needlessly involves residents in more meetings and is a waste of time and money. The
Plan Commission may want to consider a process where areas like this would be reviewed on a
routine schedule of perhaps every five (5) years. Such a process would permit all parties to be
appropriately notified and to be able to attend meetings when issues are being considered that
have an impact on their immediate neighborhoods.
There is not a shortage of homes in the area. The city could use more money to help pay for all
of the improvements that have been made, such as athletic centers and theatres. If we
remember correctly, there were an awful lot of people who were not happy about the Monon
trail be extended through their backyards, but the city decided to put it through for the greater
good of the majority and to improve the appeal of the city. To not apply the same thinking to
other development issues seems nothing less than bias and corrupt.
Given today's economy with $700 billion bailouts, we need revenue for our city. What we don't
need is more homes.
There is not a shortage of homes in the area. The city could use more money to help pay for all
of the improvements that have been made, such as athletic centers and theatres. If we
remember correctly, there were an awful lot of people who were not happy about the Monon
trail be extended through their backyards, but the city decided to put it through for the greater
good of the majority and to improve the appeal of the city. To not apply the same thinking to
other development issues seems nothing less than bias and corrupt.
Given today's economy with $700 billion bailouts, we need revenue for our city. What we don't
need is more homes.
This area should remain designated as residential, as agreed to at the September 23rd
meeting. Caving in to special interests and creating a special study area merely prolongs the
process in the hopes that local residents will weary of the bureaucracy and endless meetings
and eventually give in.
This is certainly unfair to those people who did not attend thinking these issues were finalized at
the previous meeting.
This plan for the area between Illinois and Spring Mill Rd represents yesterday’s thinking of 25
years ago. The world has drastically changed. This is not fiscally responsible either. We need
to continue to grow a strong commercial tax base. Why are we willing to allow commercial east
of Pennsylvania Ave. but not west of Illinois? This does not make any sense. Residents and
employers / employees in west Carmel want to see dynamic development that would allow for
restaurants, offices, hotels and the amenities that development like this would provide. They
are not stuck in the old way of thinking. Please consider changing this area to Regional Vitality
Node.
This would increase home and land values, create terrific work space and be something the
community could be proud to claim. The commercial development on Michigan road has been
so plain. Large parking lots and big box stores. This does not promote anything that we should
want in at 116th and Springmill. Let's not waste this opportunity but maximize what it can do for
the community. We should be thinking about increasing the tax base to
support the performing arts center and the Monon center. Those are nice amenities and have
set a high standard. Please keep your standards high for all of us citizens.
This would increase home and land values, create terrific work space and be something the
community could be proud to claim. The commercial development on Michigan road has been
so plain. Large parking lots and big box stores. This does not promote anything that we should
want in at 116th and Springmill. Let's not waste this opportunity but maximize what it can do for
the community. We should be thinking about increasing the tax base to
support the performing arts center and the Monon center. Those are nice amenities and have
set a high standard. Please keep your standards high for all of us citizens.
Those proposing and supporting this special study are using this as a tactic to buy time by
drawing those opposed into battle of attrition. We have jobs, families, and other responsibilities
and should not have to continually make a case against an obstinate desire to commercially
develop a piece of property that has already been addressed. The safety of our children, the
value of our homes, and the overall community that exists today should not be overlooked for
someone else's profit. This neighborhood is well established and has a strong desire to
maintain the community it has created. I believe it is on record by the very developer pushing
this issue, that the property being discussed cannot be developed residentially because there is
no value in homes constructed next to an office building. How can one argue homes will have a
lower value and cannot be built and then insist on putting an office next to our homes and
pretend it will have no impact our community? This is ludicrous.
Unfortunately there really is no good commercial park that I know of around. We need one that
will attract business to locate and grow. We compete on a regional and national level for our
employees.and they look for a more modern environment than what this county currently
offers. Employees today want to be able to have convenient retail next to them. They want to
be able to eat and shop next to where they are. They want places to with walking trails, bike
paths and other outdoor activities. These types of things can lure the best and brightest to us.
Being close to residential is a plus because people wouldn't have to commute nearly as far and
we can limit sprawl.
Unfortunately there really is no good commercial park that I know of around. We need one that
will attract business to locate and grow. We compete on a regional and national level for our
employees.and they look for a more modern environment than what this county currently
offers. Employees today want to be able to have convenient retail next to them. They want to
be able to eat and shop next to where they are. They want places to with walking trails, bike
paths and other outdoor activities. These types of things can lure the best and brightest to us.
Being close to residential is a plus because people wouldn't have to commute nearly as far and
we can limit sprawl.
We do not need any prolonging meetings wearing down the residents of this neighborhood.The
Carmel Planning Commission should make this decision as if they were living here with no
agenda.
We need to create a hub in the area of 116th Street and Spring Mill Rd for a tremendous
development that properly utilizes the precious and dwindling land resources we have left. I
envision an area that contains offices both professional and medical, hospitality w hotels and
restaurants. I would be hopeful that amenities like walking trails, water features, fire pits, sand
volleyball courts and pocket parks could be created to compete w such places as silicon valley,
Boston’s technology corridor, Denver and any other great place where creative and successful
people are attracted to. Please do not allow for the degradation of our tax base by requiring
housing to go into areas where housing will fail and a use which further encourages the need
for the construction of more schools and higher taxes.
We need to create a hub in the area of 116th Street and Spring Mill Rd for a tremendous
development that properly utilizes the precious and dwindling land resources we have left. I
envision an area that contains offices both professional and medical, hospitality w hotels and
restaurants. I would be hopeful that amenities like walking trails, water features, fire pits, sand
volleyball courts and pocket parks could be created to compete w such places as silicon valley,
Boston’s technology corridor, Denver and any other great place where creative and successful
people are attracted to. Please do not allow for the degradation of our tax base by requiring
housing to go into areas where housing will fail and a use which further encourages the need
for the construction of more schools and higher taxes.
We OBJECT to his land being reclassified.
We request that you reconsider the zoning plans for the above referenced area between Illinois
Street and Spring Mill Road and zone this area as either Community Vitality Node or Regional
Vitality Node. This zoning will allow for much needed commercial development in the area.
We request that you reconsider the zoning plans for the above referenced area between Illinois
Street and Spring Mill Road and zone this area as either Community Vitality Node or Regional
Vitality Node. This zoning will allow for much needed commercial development in the area.
We support the current residential designation.
While I know there is a vocal minority that opposes the type of planning that should be applied
to this area; the idea that Springmill Road is some sort of demarcation that needs to be buffered
hinders the power of sound planning for the highest and best use of those properties and
subsequently the City as a whole. Given what has been accomplished by the City of Carmel in
recent years I expect that those properties will represent planning and development worthy of
national recognition. I appreciate the efforts you all put forth to ensure that the City and its
residents continue to prosper. Thank you for your time.
While I know there is a vocal minority that opposes the type of planning that should be applied
to this area; the idea that Springmill Road is some sort of demarcation that needs to be buffered
hinders the power of sound planning for the highest and best use of those properties and
subsequently the City as a whole. Given what has been accomplished by the City of Carmel in
recent years I expect that those properties will represent planning and development worthy of
national recognition. I appreciate the efforts you all put forth to ensure that the City and its
residents continue to prosper. Thank you for your time.
With Carmel’s recent roadway and infrastructure up grades in the area, the existing office parks
and planned office building projects and the addition of a major medical facility it makes sense
to have higher density residential mixed with retail support as a buffer to single family residential
further west of the site. If the land owners in the direct vicinity including Clarian North,
Fidelity Office Park, Conseco and Pittman Properties jointly planned developments carefully
with all land owners and residents in mind it could be a tremendous asset to Carmel residents.
The general economy, cost of living and the cost of fuel are causing people to take a very hard
look at where they live and shop as it relates to where they work. Having a wider variety of
residential developments and support services west of Meridian at 116th would be a true benefit
to the entire area.
With Carmel’s recent roadway and infrastructure up grades in the area, the existing office parks
and planned office building projects and the addition of a major medical facility it makes sense
to have higher density residential mixed with retail support as a buffer to single family residential
further west of the site. If the land owners in the direct vicinity including Clarian North,
Fidelity Office Park, Conseco and Pittman Properties jointly planned developments carefully
with all land owners and residents in mind it could be a tremendous asset to Carmel residents.
The general economy, cost of living and the cost of fuel are causing people to take a very hard
look at where they live and shop as it relates to where they work. Having a wider variety of
residential developments and support services west of Meridian at 116th would be a true benefit
to the entire area.
With the large increase in the City portion of my property tax bill this past year I have no interest
in the plan to build the two additional lanes on the north end of Hazel Dell, invite more
traffic, and then pay to maintain the wear and tear until I pass from this earth. Of course there
will then be pressure to further commercialize corners like 131st and Hazel Dell on the two
southern corners. The empty lot on the north side of 131st was zoned for business in 1995,
thirteen years ago and other than over by River Road and 146th we have been fully built out
residential on the east side for several years now. There just is not a demand to serve
ourselves out in the neighborhoods with any more retail. A Primary Parkway with some large
retail areas on the south end in reclaimed mineral extraction areas with a County highway
running through the north end to bring Morse Lake shoppers down is the vision of the east side
we don't want to see. Hazel Dell should not be the conduit for a retail war, them trying to draw
Carmel shoppers north of 146th and "us" trying to draw them down at 96th.
no change, 9/30/2008
no change, 9/30/2008
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
No change in text, 9/9/08
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
3, 2008 DRAFT
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
pocket parks, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
IN PROGRESS
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
attached, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 9/30/2008
no change
no change, 9/30/2008
no change, 9/30/2008
no change, 9/30/2008
urban res, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
extend sec core and core support to 4th
Ave. OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 10/14/2008
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/9/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/9/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/9/08
to be changed in next draft, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
deleted OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
fixed caption, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
delete "but only" OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change, 10/14/2008
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
No change in text, 9/9/08
no change, 9/30/2008
No change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
"historically" deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
discussed 9/9/08. Re-word, clarify
tradiitional neighborhood design
principals
addressed 9/9/08, no change in text
addressed 9/9/08, no change in text
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
now objective 7.2
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Conditional, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 9/30/2008
no change, 9/30/2008
no change, 9/30/2008
no change, 9/30/2008
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 9/30/2008
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 9/30/2008
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 9/30/2008
no change, 9/30/2008
146th Special Study, OCTOBER 23
DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
4 lane deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change, 9/30/2008
no change in text, 9/9/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
No change in text, 9/9/08
No change in text, 9/9/08
No change in text, 9/9/08
No change in text, 9/9/08
No change in text, 9/9/08
No change in text, 9/9/08
Leading Edge City, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
No change in text, 9/9/08
No change in text, 9/9/08
No change in text, 9/9/08
No change in text, 9/9/08
No change in text, 9/9/08
No change in text, 9/9/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
add "where appropriate", OCTOBER 23
DRAFT
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
delete, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/9/08
addressed 9/9/08, no change in text
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
now Objective 6.2
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
now Objective 7.2
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
now Objective 6.1
no change in text, 9/9/08
now objective 7.2
now objective 1.5
now objective 1.8
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
Conditional, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
moved, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
no change, 9/30/2008
not that we're aware
no change, 9/30/2008
no change, 9/30/2008
no change, 9/30/2008
parts changed on map
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 9/30/2008
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
note added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 9/30/2008
4-lane deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
No change in text, 9/9/08
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 9/30/2008
no change, 9/30/2008
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 9/30/2008
4 lane deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
No change in text, 9/9/08
No change in text, 9/9/08
No change in text, 9/9/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
No change in text, 9/9/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no R/W increases for SW Clay,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 10/14/2008
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 10/14/2008
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
EMPLOYMENT, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 9/30/2008
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
"will be" deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/23/08
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 9/30/2008
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 10/14/2008
no parking
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/9/08
No change in text, 9/9/08
no change, 9/30/2008
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
expanded upon in later comments
no change, 9/30/2008
no change, 9/30/2008
no change, 9/30/2008
no change, 9/30/2008
no change, 9/30/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Notes
Notes
Notes
Notes
Notes
Notes
Notes
Notes
No change in text, 9/9/08
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 10/14/2008
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 10/14/2008
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 10/14/2008
no change, 10/14/2008
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
deleted, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 9/30/2008
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
EMPLOYMENT, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 10/14/2008
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 10/14/2008
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 10/14/2008
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change, 10/14/2008
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
146th Special Study Corridor, OCTOBER
23 DRAFT
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
New language, cross-section drawing
added, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
No change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/9/08
deleted OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
no change in text, 9/9/08
no change in text, 9/23/08
Special Study per Oct 14 mtg,
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
Special Study Area, OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
OCTOBER 23 DRAFT
X Date Name Page Comment Notes
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Add back major street names to map
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM In general the map is too specific (down to the parcel)
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM In general, residential densities should not be increased without an extensive homeowner
survey. I would change them all to their current densities until we get that information.
8/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM VOWC: Community Vitality too intense for 131st/Towne. Should be Neigh Service Node.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM Community Vitality Node in Village of WestClay. Reclassify it to “Neighborhood Service Node,”
which seems written to fit this parcel. This commercial area already is a red-hot button issue with
many, many area residents and this classification really riles area residents. This classification
permits it to become like the commercial area on Michigan Road (West Carmel Center) or
Merchants’ Square (see examples cited). Do you really want large numbers of semi-sized
delivery trucks on the surrounding roads? This is a huge increase in intensity of use and it invites
Brenwick to submit new plans.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM 131st & Ditch Community Vitality Node should be Neighborhood Support Node
9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM Village of WestClay (VWC) Zoning Changes-The commercial area west of Towne Rd. is a
promised "NSN", not an intense "CVN". It is located in an area of "Low Intensity Sub. Res.",
which is not listed as an Appropriate Adjacent Classification to a "CVN". The "CVN" classification
would open up possibilities for the VWC that its approval does not permit.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM The VWC, (overall density 2.1 u/a), is NOT "Urban Res. (4-8 u/a)", as on the Map. That
classification could lead to more than doubling the currently permitted density of the portions that
are not yet built out. It would also further increase the rezoning requests from owners of the
surrounding, now "compromised", properties. The "transitioning" from the VWC was supposed
to stop with the Trillium development.
9/3/2008 Andy Crook LCM DO NOT support suburban residential classification in NW Clay. The map is too much patch
work nature. Support Low Intensity Suburban up to 1.5 instead.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM Suburban Residential is inappropriate in Carmel West in 5 locations. Details will be provided
when everyone can look at the map.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM Suburban Res. (2-4.9 u/a)-Inappropriate in West Carmel. The lower limit would double current
zoning. The upper limit is "Urban Res. (4-8 u/a), and 5 times the current zoning.
8/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM 1.9 Du/a is too high for West Clay. Existing densities are from 1.18 to 1.28 (see density map)
9/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM Low Intensity Suburban Residential would significantly change the character of Carmel West and
adversely impact its desirability for current and future residents. Additional documentation will be
provided at the hearing.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Green (1 unit per acre) should be used for all residential areas from 96th to 146th and Spring
Mill to Michigan Rd,. except for existing developments that exceed 1 unit per acre now.
9/22/2008 CWIC2 LCM Except for where the map correctly classifies currently existing development/zoning, all land west
of Springmill Rd needs to be zoned Estate Residential.
9/22/2008 CWIC2 LCM Currently this area averages approximately 1.22 u/a. South of 116th St. averages approximately
1.05 u/a. while north of 116th St. averages approximately 1.28 u/a.
9/22/2008 CWIC2 LCM Since incentives for quality include increasing density, a zoning density of 1 u/a already can be
expected to increase density above the current averages.
PART 3: LAND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MAP
VILLAGE OF WESTCLAY
NO SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (ORANGE) IN WEST CARMEL
LOW INTENSITY SUBURBAN (YELLOW) TOO DENSE FOR WEST CARMEL
Land Classification Map Comments 9/26/2008
9/22/2008 CWIC2 LCM Estate Residential zoning is in keeping with the character of the area, in keeping with the current
zoning that people believed they were getting when they invested in their homes, and in keeping
with what the vast majority of the residents in the area strongly desire.
9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM A density spreadsheet based on DOCS figures shows subdivision density averages west of
Spring Mill Road: All=1.18 u/a; North of 116th St.=1.28 u/a; South of 116th=1.05 u/a/ (If included
private landowners, area numbers would be even lower.)
9/22/2008 Dee Fox LCM Low intensity Sub. Res-Up to 1.9 u/a for most of Northwest Clay is still too high, for reasons
stated previously under that classification. Residents see no reason to raise density limits at all,
especially not beyond the levels of most existing developments. Since currently zoned density
limits, (1.0 u/a), have not been enforced, why would anyone believe that higher limits would be?
Doubling the density would also be incompatible with the estate character of West Carmel.
9/15/2008 Karen Gould LCM I reside in Laurel Lakes Subdivision at 126th and Towne Road. I am opposed to any increase in
the housing density in this area. We moved here because of the lack of high density housing,
and the housing in WestClay is dense enough. We do not need any more apartments in this
area or more houses crammed onto an acre of land. There is no need to increase the density
any further in this area.
9/19/2008 CWIC2 LCM East Carmel has 10 parks & river greenway. Central has 5 & Monon Greenway. West has 1
City park & 1 County park. Why aren’t we identifying where the next park should go before there
is no land left?
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Along Spring Mill Rd, the existing residential neighborhoods need to be labeled with the density
they currently have. I doubt that they will be redeveloped before the next comp plan update
X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan LCM occurs. Add 40 acres Parks & Recreation to West Park to reflect expansion SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
X 8/19/2008 Judy Hagan LCM Add Greek Orthodox Church (106th/Shelborne) and Hebrew Congregation (W of University HS)
as Institutional
SEPTEMBER 2 SUPPLEMENT
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM Could we put a park at the Monon and Main, SW corner? I have had several people ask for
this….It would be an ideal location for a gazebo, park benches and bike parking during the Arts
festival. Most old towns have this amenity.
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM West of the Monon just south of there should be urban residential, not core support
9/16/2008 Roger Kilmer LCM If the north meridian heights rezone goes through, we should update this land classification map
to change the meridian heights neighborhood (located east of US 31 and 131st st.) from the
peach color (suburban residential) to the blue color (employment node).
9/22/2008 Carol Schleif LCM SW corner of 116th and Westfield Blvd should be Orange. We ruled out higher density when we
denied Townhomes at Central Park.
31 CORRIDOR
8/19/2008 Steve Pittman LCM 116th & Spring Mill: Potential to create something for west-siders to avoid crossing 31. Difficult
for service/office workers to get anywhere on their lunch hours. Intense office next to large lot
single family does not make sense from a planning perspective.
8/21/2008 Barbara Layton LCM No Commercial West of Illinois, believe Pittman farm can be developed residentially
9/22/2008 Joyce Harrison LCM I do not understand why the Meridian Surburban neighborhood is in the Regional Vitality Node.
That is the neighborhood just south of 111th and and just west of Meridian. I hope the residents
in this area have been made aware of this change.
WEST CARMEL: OTHER
NORTH CENTRAL CARMEL
SOUTH CENTRAL CARMEL
Land Classification Map Comments 9/26/2008
63 11/12/2008